[제3자이의][집34(3)민,147;공1987.2.1.(793),144]
Ownership of a building constructed by a specific person's contribution for the purpose of building a temple;
Although a temple building, such as a roroop, which forms the substance of a temple, was constructed with a private person's contribution, if it was constructed for the purpose of construction of the temple from the beginning to the original date, the building was built for the purpose of construction of the temple, and at the same time it was original acquisition at the same time.
Article 186 of the Civil Act
[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellee-appellant-appellant-appellee-
Defendant
Msan District Court Decision 85Na122 delivered on December 6, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the building of this case, which is the plaintiff Buddhist temple's jurity and the plaintiff Buddhist temple, was constructed for the purpose of building the plaintiff Buddhist temple around July 15, 1949, and as such, the plaintiff Buddhist temple built by the above non-party 1 was managed by the non-party 2, who was appointed to be widely known at the same end team, and was integrated into the Korea Buddhist Buddhist temple's Cho Jong-sung, the non-party 3 was appointed as the chief of the plaintiff temple's building on October 14, 1962, and the building of this case was owned by the non-party 3 as the plaintiff Buddhist Buddhist temple's property for the purpose of building the plaintiff Buddhist Buddhist temple's own property, and the non-party 3 was not entitled to be registered as the plaintiff's property for the purpose of building construction on July 17, 1949, and it was justified for the court below to find that the non-party 1's ownership was not registered as the plaintiff Buddhist temple's property for the purpose of this case.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)