소유권말소등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) the court’s explanation on the instant case is based on the evidence No. 9, which is set forth below No. 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the evidence No. 5 as “No. 9; and (b) added the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth below, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The portion to be judged additionally by the trial.
A. Defendant B asserts that “The Plaintiff’s substance is “AG,” the representative of which is “AF,” and is also an incorporated foundation, and thus, the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff as a non-incorporated entity with the representative AH constitutes an action instituted by a person disqualified for the Plaintiff, and thus unlawful.”
In addition to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2 in the above evidence, 1985, the deceased R newly built the law party, etc. on the above land from around Feb. 1985 to the Gyeongnam-Gun S Village with the view of the new law party, etc., and created A, had a Buddhist assembly against the new Do while operating the temple. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 13588, Feb. 2, 1985; Presidential Decree No. 13568, Feb. 26, 1991; Presidential Decree No. 13574, Feb. 198; Presidential Decree No. 13588, Feb. 26, 1991; Presidential Decree No. 13588, Feb. 26, 1994; Presidential Decree No. 17588, Feb. 19, 198; Presidential Decree No. 17220, Feb. 19, 1998>
According to these facts, the plaintiff is an independent temple with the substance as a religious organization, and thus has the ability to be a party as an independent subject to the rights and obligations.