[소유권이전등기말소][공1994.12.1.(981),3118]
(a) Whether an individual temple can be an independent subject of ownership before the individual temple is registered as an Buddhist organization under the former Act on the Management of Buddhist Property;
(b) Whether an inspection registered as an independent religious organization after the repeal of the same Act is registered under the name of the previous individual inspection, and whether the ownership of real estate not registered as an organization is acquired at the time of registration of the Buddhist organization under the same Act;
A. Since a building was established by an individual, a temple remaining as an individual temple before the date of registration by the former Buddhist Temples Preservation Act (repealed by the Korean Traditional Temples Preservation Act, Law No. 3974, Nov. 28, 1987), which was managed and operated by an individual, is merely merely a facility for the purpose of the ownership of the individual, and it cannot be the subject of independent rights. If the individual temple registered as an Buddhist organization under the same Act and owned its basic property, and the chief minister has been appointed, it shall be the object of independent rights as a temple, which is an Buddhist organization under Article 2 of the same Act from that time.
B. As a result of the repeal of the same Act, a temple was registered as a religious organization under Article 41-2 (1) 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and thereafter, a temple succeeded to the properties of the Buddhist organization registered under the former Buddhist Property Management Act and became an independent temple having the substance as a non-corporate body and became competent for the party. However, if the real estate was registered under the same Act as an individual temple, and the real estate was not registered as its basic property at the time the individual temple was registered as an Buddhist organization under the same Act, if the real estate was not incorporated into the registered Buddhist organization and was not registered as its basic property, it cannot be deemed as the property of the Buddhist organization, and still remains as it remains as owned by the person who managed and operated the original individual temple. Thus, it cannot be said that the temple, which is a religious organization whose substance is succeeded as it is, acquires the ownership of the real estate.
A. Articles 2, 6, 9, and 11 of the former Act on the Management of Buddhist Property, Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act. Articles 13 and 14 of the former Act on the Management of Buddhist Property, Article 41-2(1)3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act
A. Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1489 (Gong1988,665) Decided March 22, 198. 76Da820 (Gong1976,9327) Decided August 24, 1976
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others
Defendant 1 and 22 Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee
Suwon District Court Decision 92Na5505 delivered on March 25, 1994
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the above non-party 1's personal inspection of the plaintiff 2 as non-party 1's personal inspection after being created by the non-party 1 in around 189. The non-party 2 was managed and operated by the non-party 1's children, and the non-party 3 was appointed as his children in around 1954, and the above non-party 3 was transferred to the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's personal inspection site and building's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1'6'
However, as recognized by the court below, since the original "Yyang Cancer" was established on February 19, 1968 by the above non-party 1 and it continued to exist as an individual inspection before it was registered as the "Korea Uneffective Cancer", the above "Yyang Cancer" merely belongs to the non-owned facilities, and it cannot be the subject of independent rights (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1489, Mar. 22, 198). The original "Yyang Cancer", which is merely an individual inspection, still belongs to the above non-permanent temple's original "Yyang Cancer", which is the non-registered and non-registered property of the plaintiff 2, which is the non-registered and non-registered one of the above non-registered and non-registered one's own property, and it still belongs to the above non-registered one's own property as the non-registered one's own property, and it has been registered as the non-registered one's own property as the non-registered one's own property and the above non-registered one's own property as the above.
Therefore, in this case where there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff temple acquired the ownership of the real estate in this case, the plaintiff temple had ownership of the real estate in this case, and it is evident that the plaintiff's claim against the defendants for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration made with respect to the real estate in this case is groundless. Thus, the plaintiff's ground of appeal that the above disposition should be applied to the above disposition on the premise that the plaintiff has ownership of the real estate in this case, or that the rules of the plaintiff temple should be applied.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)