2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by B;

A. On February 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a report on the establishment of five ring towers of 31.25 square meters (6.25 square meters x 5 square meters) with the Defendant on the ground of 820 square meters of a total area of 31.25 square meters (6.25 square meters x 5 square meters) on the ground of the application site in Magdong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant application site”).

B. On April 12, 2019, the Defendant rejected the report on the said establishment on the ground that “the right to access the said establishment was not secured to ensure a collective civil petition due to the inconvenience of living, and to resolve the inconvenience of residents.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant, which judged on the defense prior to the merits, shall make a defense prior to the merits that the plaintiff has no capacity to be a party as an individual inspection.

In order to say that the temple has the substance as an independent temple, such as the Buddhist temple property, which is a physical element, the Buddhist temple as well as the awareness that it is a human element, and there are many new ideas, and the temple needs to carry out social activities with its own life-bearing capacity with its rules as an organization.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da42179 delivered on January 30, 2001). Meanwhile, in a case where an individual purchases land, such as Buddhistdo and Buddhistdo and Buddhist village and constructs a building on the land, and then makes Buddhist consciousness in a place where it is widely known, if the construction owner of the temple joined a specific final group and registered as a temple under his/her jurisdiction, and registered as a temple in his/her name with respect to the site and building of the temple in the name of the inspector, and completed a procedure such as devolving the temple property on the land and building in the name of the inspector, it shall be deemed that the temple becomes an independent right owner as an incorporated foundation or association that is not a juristic person, but if it fails to reach such procedure, it shall be deemed that the individual inspection is merely an Buddhist facility as an Buddhist temple.

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da54971 Delivered on June 24, 2005