[토지소유권이전등기][공1982.3.15.(676),253]
(a) Reasons for obtaining permission from the Minister concerned for disposal of the inspection property;
(b) Where permission for the disposal of temple property is null and void;
A. The disposal of the temple property by obtaining permission from the Minister concerned is to protect and maintain the temple property so that it regulates the inspection in order to achieve the original purpose of existence and the purpose of contributing to the improvement of social culture as well as the original purpose of the inspection.
B. Even if the permission of the competent Minister has been obtained for the disposal of the inspection property, such permission shall be null and void if it is about the disposal to the extent that the permission deviates from the purpose of the inspection or is likely to endanger the existence of the inspection.
Article 11 of the Buddhist Property Management Act
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.
Attorney Jin-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Gwangju High Court Decision 78Na387,402 delivered on February 24, 1981
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. We examine the first ground for appeal.
The old inspection order and the current Buddhist Property Management Act allow the competent Minister to dispose of a certain temple property. The inspection is an Buddhist organization for the purpose of the Buddhist inspection, the execution of the inspection, and the edification of the believers. The ownership of the property is composed of real estate necessary for the realization of the purposes of the inspection, and the Buddhist land, etc. and movable property necessary for the Buddhist's daily life. On the other hand, such property has cultural property value which serves as artistic foundation, and needs to be protected and maintained for the preservation of its scenic sense, so it is clear that the inspection is not proper to regulate the property to achieve its original purpose and to contribute to the improvement of social culture, and thus, the disposal of the property without the permission of the competent Minister may not be deemed as null and void if it is deemed that the disposal of the property without the permission of the competent Minister is not likely to go beyond the original purpose of the inspection or to go beyond the original purpose of the inspection, and the disposal of the property without the permission of the inspection is not likely to go beyond the original purpose of the inspection or to go beyond the original purpose of the inspection.
2. We examine the remaining grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 together.
The court below's decision in violation of Article 104 of the Constitution refers to the violation of the rules of evidence and the misconception of facts in its contents. In addition, the court below's decision in violation of the rule of experience in the calculation of market price and the restriction of agreement without agreement on division of common property is legitimate in the external relation, and the court below's decision in violation of the legal principles as to the division of common property cannot be justified in the external relation, since it is obvious that the disposition of the non-party cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal in light of Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)