[사찰등록무효확인][공1992.5.1.(919),1308]
The case holding that the plaintiff temple belonging to a different individual type of inspection has no substantial ability to be a party, in case where the inspection was completed on the solar species, which is an integrated type of inspection, after the previous inspection was registered as the inspection under its jurisdiction, and was managed by the chief of the countermeasureal notification, and completed the inspection registration under its solar species, the plaintiff temple belonging to the separate type of inspection has no substantial ability to
The case holding that, in case where the inspection was managed and maintained by the chief of the place to cope with the inspection and completed the registration of the inspection under the control of the inspection under the solar region after the examination of the defects in requirements by the competent authorities, even if the inspection was registered as the inspection of the previous inspection, which is an integrated type of the inspection at the time of the integration of the non-Gu and large areas, only the entity of the inspection belonging to the type of inspection can not be recognized as the entity of the plaintiff inspection belonging to the type of the inspection, which is a separate Buddhist organization, even though it was registered as the inspection of the previous inspection.
Article 6 of the former Buddhist Temple Property Management Act (repealed by the Traditional Temple Preservation Act, Law No. 3974 of Nov. 28, 1987), Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 76Da1123 delivered on April 12, 1977, 78Da1537 delivered on November 14, 1978 (Gong1988,65)
[Defendant-Appellee] J.S. Non-Korean Government Corporation (Attorney Lee Na-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellee)
Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor
Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the Tae Tae-Shan National University in Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu545 delivered on February 29, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the inspection of this case was carried out by Nonparty 1 as its representative before the end of the inspection of this case and was actually managed and operated by Nonparty 1 as its representative before the end of the inspection of this case, he was appointed Nonparty 1 as its chief inspector on January 13, 1962. On the other hand, the non-party 1 as its representative after the completion of the inspection of this case's non-party 1 as its chief inspector's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1'
Under the facts as determined by the court below, the inspection of this case is naturally belonging to the protocol, just because the inspection of this case was a previous inspection, the non-permanent inspection of this case was integrated, or the inspection of this case was registered as an inspection of this case when the inspection of this case was registered as an inspection of this case, and the inspection of this case was managed and maintained by the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2, etc., and it was determined as the inspection of the kind of inspection of this case by being registered as the result of the examination of the defects in the requirements by the competent agency, and there are any defects falling under the grounds for invalidation of the registration disposition of this case. Thus, the inspection of this case can only have the substance of the inspection of the defendant joining the defendant who is the non-party 1 and the above non-party 2, etc., and it cannot be recognized as the substance of the inspection of this case, which is a separate non-permanent organization.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles like the theory of lawsuit or in the violation of the rules of evidence, and the precedents cited by the theory of lawsuit are all different cases, and it cannot be a proper precedent in this case. All arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)