The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We cannot agree with the original judgment that the Plaintiff’s head office, seven cancers and their affiliated buildings exist in the original forest area based on the evidence stated in the original judgment, and that the disposition of the forest land in question shall lose the existence and existence of the Plaintiff’s temple, and it cannot be readily concluded that there was an error in the process of its recognition. Accordingly, the argument is nothing more than anything else to criticize the matters of the original judgment on the determination of the evidence and the fact-finding.

All arguments are groundless.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

The provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the previous Inspection Decree and Article 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Inspection Decree shall apply to the donation of the forest land in this case before the Japanese Buddhist Property Management Act was enacted. However, since the property which is unnecessary for the existence of the inspection cannot be deemed to be limited to the property stipulated in Article 4 Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 Item 1, 2, and 3 of the Buddhist Property Management Act, the disposition of the forest in this case based on the evidence stated in the original judgment shall be deemed to have lost the existence and existence of the plaintiff temple, and the act of donation in this case shall be deemed to have lost the existence and existence of the plaintiff temple and it shall not be deemed to have committed an unlawful act in violation of the public order and good morals under the premise that the Gu Resident Law shall apply (see this decision, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 63Da878, Jun. 4, 196). It is without merit.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet