Do-si Do-si Do-si

Do-si Do-si Do-si

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant asserts that, since the plaintiff is a private master, if the chief executive officer of the teaching team, who is the chief executive officer of the teaching team, pursuant to the Inspection Act, etc., which is the internal norm of the teaching team, requests that the chief executive officer of the teaching team be bound by the letter of recommendation of the chief executive officer, the letter of recommendation of the chief executive officer, which is attached to the letter of recommendation of the chief executive officer. However, since the chief executive officer is not a letter of recommendation of creativeism

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence No. 1, Article 12 (3) of the Inspection Act, which is a subordinate norm to the Korean Buddhist Cho Jong-sung (hereinafter referred to as "the Cho Jong-sung"), and Article 18 (2) 13 of the Personnel Management Regulations, which provides that the chief executive officer of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office shall be appointed as the chief executive officer, and the letter of recommendation of the person holding the right to the establishment of the principal office of the principal office of the private master office of the principal office

However, evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, 8-1, 10, 11, 10, 11, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2, 12-1, 2-2, 13-1, 13-2, 12-1, 13-2, and 3-1, 12-1, 2-2, 13-1 and 2 of the evidence of Nos. 7-1, 2, 3-1 and 13-2 of the evidence of No. 7-2, and * the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony of *

① Article 2(2) of the Inspection Act, which is the internal norm of the inspection division, provides that the inspection is a private car that is registered and operated as a "non-sacrificing type ○○○○ (marite) of the inspection division for the first time", and Article 3(1) of the Inspection Act provides that "a person who has built the inspection" and "a person who is registered in the inspection division at the time of the registration of the private car."

② On October 10, 1962, the Plaintiff was registered as a temple belonging to the steering division. Since the Private Cancer Registration and Control Act, which is the internal norm of the steering division, was established on April 27, 1983, it was registered in the steering division as the private cancer, and the registration of the Changju, which is the registered matters, was omitted.

3.* This* An application was filed for registration of establishment in the direct branch office on August 5, 2010, but is not resolved, 2010.

8. 10. 10. The Defendant delegated all the powers belonging to the Plaintiff’s temple and submitted a letter of succession to the Changju to the Director General of the Cho Jong-gun. On September 6, 2010, the Defendant filed an application for registration of the Changju to the Director General of the Cho Jong-gun, who had not been processed accordingly * during the period when the application was not processed * this. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22102, Oct. 201>

10. 30. Death.

④ On April 28, 2011, the Defendant filed a petition for a trial to the effect that the Defendant entered this** A, and that the Defendant’s succession to the authority to create a new house and appointment of a chief executive officer were requested to the Defendant, which was the registered matters omitted at the time of the Plaintiff’s registration of inspection.

⑤ Meanwhile, on April 8, 201, 000, ○○○○○, a chief executive officer of the Cho Jong-dong branch, applied for a change in appointment of Kim Jong-sung as widely known for the expiration of his/her term of office** the head of the General Affairs Office applied for a change in appointment of Kim Jong-sung as widely known for the reason of expiration of his/her term of office. However, the Defendant’s handling of the said application was suspended

(6) On December 12, 201, 201, ○○○○, a chief of the direct branch office, made a separate claim for the removal of the chief of the Cho Jong-ju on December 21, 201 ** according to the expiration of the term of office** due to the expiration of the term of office ** the chief of the Cho Jong-sung, on December 21, 201 * notify the chief of

7) Since then, there was a decision by the family council members that dismissed the Defendant’s claim for the damages caused by the Defendant’s Changju, etc. by the Plaintiff * on March 26, 2012. However, the reasons for the decision above are that it is difficult to register the Plaintiff as the family council members * on the sole basis of the contributions ** * * * - it is difficult to register the Plaintiff as the family council members, considering the fact that the family council members created the family council in 1944 and registered the family council for the first time on September 28, 1962, that the family council members had existed in the past and continued to be appointed as the family council members.

8) On May 1, 2012, the president of the Cho Jong-gun, appointed Kim Jong-sung as the chief minister of the plaintiff's representative on May 1, 2012.

According to the above-mentioned ① and 8 facts of recognition, the plaintiff was omitted from the registration of the original owner at the time when the registration was made for the original owner as a private master, and there is no original owner under Article 3(1) of the Inspection Act until now. It is reasonable to view that there is an inevitable circumstance in which the plaintiff cannot receive "the letter of recommendation by the right holder for the original owner" under Article 12(3) of the Inspection Act and Article 18(2)13 of the Rules on the Personnel Management of the last owner, and therefore, the appointment of a letter of recommendation for the original owner is legitimate. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

갑 제1 내지 3, 12호증의 각 기재, 증인 ▲▲▲의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 원고는 부동산실권리자명의등기에관한법률 ( 이하, ' 부동산실명법 ' 이라고만 한다 ) 시행 이전에 신도들로부터 시주받은 제답 ( 祭좌 ) 과 돈으로 별지 목록 기재 각 부동산 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 각 부동산 ' 이라 한다 ) 을 구입하였는데, 그 지목이 농지이므로 사찰 명의로 등기가 불가능하여 이 * * 의 명의로 각 소유권이전등기를 마쳐 둔 사실, ② 이 * * 은 자신이 사망하기 이전에 김모씨 앞으로 재차 명의신탁을 하려고 하였으나 김모씨가 어느 선방에서 수행하는지 행방을 알 수 없어 2010. 4. 2. 매매를 원인으로 하여 같은 달 27일 피고 명의로 이 사건 각 부동산에 관한 소유권이전등기를 마친 사실, ③ 이 * * 의 사망 후인 2011. 4. 15. 직지사의 호법국장인 ▲▲▲이 원고 사찰 내에서 피고를 만나 이 사건 각 부동산에 관하여 이야기를 나누었는데, 당시 피고는 이 사건 각 부동산이 원고의 소유임을 인정한 사실, ④ 피고는 2012. 3. 26. 조계종 초심호계위원들의 면전에서 이 사건 각 부동산은 피고의 재산이 아니고, 원고 사찰에 대한 권한이 피고한테는 전혀 없다는 취지로 진술한 사실, ⑤ 이 사건 각 부동산은 원고가 사찰 운영을 위하여 계속 사용해 온 사실을 인정할 수 있다 .

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant succeeded to the status of the trustee with respect to each of the real estate in this case* is succeeded to the status of the trustee from the trustee, or is newly entrusted by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that each transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant is registered under the title trust.

According to Article 11(1) of the Real Estate Real Name Act with respect to the validity of the above title trust agreement, the title truster, who had a real right to real estate registered under the title trust agreement before the enforcement of the above Act, in the name of the title trustee, shall enter into the actual name registration within one year from the enforcement date of the above Act. According to Articles 12(1) and 4 of the Act, where the real right to real estate is not registered or sold within the grace period under Article 11, the title trust agreement after the expiration of the grace period is null and void. However, according to the proviso of Article 11(1) of the Real Estate Real Name Act, the real estate held in title by a religious organization, etc. for the purpose of evading tax evasion, compulsory execution, and under Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Real Name Act, "real estate prescribed by Presidential Decree" refers to farmland (including any building constructed on farmland) under the Farmland Act used by the religious organization, etc. for its unique purpose, and according to subparagraph 1 (a) of the Farmland Act and other land actually used for cultivation and production.

이 사건으로 돌아와 보건대, 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 9, 갑 제3호증의 1 내지 9의 각 기재, 증인 ▲▲▲의 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 각 부동산은 그 지목이 모두 ' 답 ' 또는 ' 전 ' 으로서 매수 이후 계속하여 원고 사찰의 운영을 위하여 사용되어 온 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 이 사건 각 부동산은 종교단체인 원고 사찰이 그 고유목적을 위하여 사용하는 농지법에 의한 농지로서 부동산실명법 제11조 단서에서 규정한 부동산에 해당한다 할 것이므로, 이 사건 각 부동산에 대한 명의신탁약정은 이 사건 소제기 당시 유효하게 존속하고 있었다 할 것이다 .

Therefore, the above title trust agreement was lawfully terminated on January 4, 2012, when the copy of the complaint of this case, stating that the Plaintiff’s declaration that the title trust agreement was terminated for each real estate of this case, reaches the Defendant, the title trustee, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for each real estate of this case to the Plaintiff on January 4, 2012, barring any special circumstance.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case is unfair since the plaintiff's property was transferred to * the original owner of the plaintiff's temple, the defendant succeeded to the original owner's status, and the property acquired with the main assets of the plaintiff's new inspection's new owner's own assets is owned by the original owner even though it was acquired with the main assets of the individual inspection.

In examining all evidence of the defendant's submission, this case's real estate is owned by this case* or the defendant's personal ownership, this case*** the building of the plaintiff's temple, or the defendant's succession to the status of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.