(b) Whether a third party who has actually acquired real estate owned by the temple or the Buddhist organization from the title trustee or acquired the security right acquires it effectively without permission from the competent agency;

(c) Effect of the act of disposal of the inspection property where the act of disposal of the inspection property to the extent that it deserts the purpose of the inspection or to the extent that it may endanger the existence of the inspection has obtained

(d) The validity of an act of disposal of the inspection property where the act of disposal of the inspection property to the extent that it deserts the purpose of the inspection or it may endanger the existence of the inspection was done by the title trustee

B. In substance, even if the real estate owned by inspection or Buddhist organization is owned by a third party on the registry, if it is trusted to a third party on the registry, it shall be reserved in the external relationship between the truster and the trustee in accordance with the general legal principles of the title trust, to the inspection or the Buddhist organization whose ownership is the truster. However, in the external relationship with the third party, only the third party, who is the trustee, shall be the owner. Therefore, the third party who received the ownership or acquired the security right from the title trustee, shall acquire the right

C. The Buddhist Property Management Act provides that the disposal of a certain temple property shall be permitted by the competent agency by means of protecting and maintaining the temple property. Thus, the disposal of the property shall be null and void to the extent that the inspection is likely to escape from the purpose of the inspection or to endanger the existence of the inspection, regardless of whether the disposal of the property is permitted by the competent agency or not.

D. If the disposal of the property in question is a substantial ownership of the temple and it is impossible to accomplish the purposes of the inspection or is likely to endanger the existence of the inspection itself, the disposal of the property in question by a third party, a title trustee, even if the property in question is in title trust with a third party, is null and void.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on November 19, 1982, the court below: (a) leased KRW 110,00,00 to the defendant on March 31, 1982 without a interest agreement; (b) concluded a pre-sale agreement with respect to each of the real estate in this case for the purpose of securing the above loan obligation; and (c) concluded a provisional registration to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff on the same day; and (d) decided that there is no dispute over the fact that the defendant did not pay the above obligation by the due date, the above pre-sale agreement was declared to have been declared as having been declared as having been declared as having been declared as having been declared as having been declared as having been the completion of the above pre-sale agreement; and (e) comprehensively taking into account the macro evidence, each of the real estate in this case is the non-party ○○, a non-party 1, a non-party 1906, which belongs to the KIBC, and the defendant did not obtain permission from the competent agency at the above provisional registration.

2. The term "real estate which can be transferred or offered as security only with permission from the competent authorities under Article 11 (1) 2 of the Buddhist Property Management Act means the real estate owned by the inspection or the Buddhist organization. The term "real estate owned by the inspection or the Buddhist organization" refers to the real estate registered with the competent authorities as the Buddhist property, and it is not sufficient that it is registered with the competent authorities as the Buddhist property, and it refers to the real estate registered under the name of the inspection or the Buddhist organization pursuant to Article 186 of the Civil Code. Even if it is owned by the inspection or the Buddhist organization, if it is owned by a third party on the register, it is reserved to the inspection or the Buddhist organization as the truster in the internal relationship with the trustee pursuant to the general legal principles of the title trust, but in external relations with the third party, only the third party who is the trustee shall be the party member (see Supreme Court Decision 7Da1079, Sept. 25, 197).

However, the Buddhist Property Management Act requires permission from the competent authorities for disposal of a certain temple property because it is an Buddhist organization for the purpose of the Buddhist law, the Buddhist law, the execution of the law, and the edification of the believers. The ownership of the temple is composed of real estate, such as buildings, land, etc. necessary for the realization of the purposes of the inspection and the maintenance of the lives of the believers, and real estate, pictures, stone, and other Buddhist rites, and movable property necessary for the daily life of the Buddhist citizens. Meanwhile, such property has cultural property value which serves as artistic and historical materials at the time of the inspection and needs to be protected and maintained for the preservation of its scenic sense. Thus, it is necessary to interpret the law of the Buddhist Property under the Buddhist Property Management Act to protect and maintain its original purpose as well as to regulate its property for the purpose of improving its social culture, and thus, if it is deemed that the ownership of the temple is not dangerous to the general property of the title trustee, it shall be deemed that it will be invalid or invalid for 136 years of the inspection, regardless of its permission from the competent authorities.

According to the records, each of the real estate in this case is registered with the competent authorities as property owned by the above ○○○○○’s site and its actual property used as the landscape, etc. (Provided, That this is not registered only with the address 2 omitted) and ( Address 1 omitted), and ( Address 3 omitted) are co-ownership of the defendant and the non-party, and ( Address 4 omitted) is registered with the ownership transfer registration under each title trust under the defendant’s name as lawful. However, the court below should have determined that each of the above land in this case was classified as a religious site and its category was constructed on the ground of the above ○○○○○○○○○○’s site and its actual property used as the landscape, etc. ( Address 4 omitted) and that the above provisional registration is not possible or likely to endanger the execution of the religious site in this case’s possession and sale of the above religious site, and thus, it is difficult for the court below to find that the above provisional registration is unlawful or likely to endanger the above fact that it does not constitute a sale and sale of the forest land in this case’s (1).

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)