[2] In a case where a temple owns a housing site at the time of the enforcement of the Act on the Ownership of a Housing Site and uses it for its unique duties, whether it is exempted from the imposition of excess ownership charges (affirmative)

[3] In a case where a temple leases a housing site that does not fall within the border area and such a revenue has not been used as expenses for Buddhist projects, social welfare projects, and other public projects, whether it can be deemed that it is directly used for its unique duties (negative)

[2] Inspection is its unique business, such as Buddhist consciousness (the law session and attitude), performance and life of Buddhist Buddhist, Buddhist Buddhist, edification and education of believers, charity, etc. Accordingly, inspection is excluded from the subject of excess ownership charges, since it constitutes a building site within the temple landscape that it owns a housing site at the time of the enforcement of the Act on the Ownership of a Housing Site, a building site within the temple that is used for its unique business, a building site for a worship or an Buddhist event, a land used for a worship or an Buddhist ceremony, and other land used for the preservation of the dignity or scenic beauty of a temple, which is deemed to have obtained permission from the head of the local government, and is deemed to have already fulfilled the duty to use and develop the housing site under Article 18 of the Act on the Ownership of a Housing Site or acquired under Article 10 of the Act on the Ownership of a Housing Site, and is a housing site that

[3] If there is no evidence to acknowledge that the inspection income from the lease of land which does not fall within the border is appropriated for the church projects operated by the inspection, social welfare projects and other public works expenses, that land does not constitute a direct use for its unique duties, and it does not meet the criteria for permission for the acquisition of a housing site to a corporation under Article 12 (1) 4 of the Act and Article 12 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 193). Thus, it does not constitute a housing site subject to the exclusion of excess ownership charges under Articles 20 (1) 8 and 26 (1) 5 of the same Decree.

1. The plaintiff's ground of appeal

A. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on September 26, 1989, the Mayor of Busan Metropolitan City decided the area where business activities are prohibited as the site of the plaintiff temple as the site of the traditional temple in consultation with the chief of the plaintiff temple on September 26, 1989 and Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as the area within a radius of 1,250 meters, and the remaining land (hereinafter referred to as "the issue of this case") excluding the land recognized as excluded from the charges for excessive ownership (hereinafter referred to as "charges"), among each land listed in the attached Table of the judgment of the court below (the land list) is determined as excluded from the charges for excessive ownership (hereinafter referred to as "charges"), is located outside the area where the above determined business activities are prohibited, and there is no more than two km away general houses from the front line of the plaintiff temple, and some land is left abandoned as an open area without cultivating it or using it for cultivating it, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the land of this case or the traditional temple's preservation.

B. On the second ground for appeal

An inspection is its unique duties, such as Buddhist consciousness, conduct and life of Buddhist worship, education and training of believers, charity, etc., and, at the time of the enforcement of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), a building site within the temple boundary where a temple owns a housing site and performs the above duties, land used for the worship or Buddhist exercise, and other land used for the preservation of the dignity or wind of a temple shall be deemed to have obtained permission from the head of a Si/Gun and shall be deemed to have already performed the duty to use and develop a housing site under Article 18 of the Act or acquired pursuant to Article 10 of the Act, and shall be excluded from the subject of charges (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu2302, Aug. 26, 1994; 94Nu2394, Jan. 24, 1995; 93Nu5375, May 36, 1995).

However, in light of the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the income from the land (each land listed in the annexed Form 13, 16 of the judgment of the court below) in which the lease income is earned from the other among the land at issue of this case from the land of this case is appropriated for the bridge business operated by the plaintiff, social welfare business, and other expenses for public works. Thus, each of the above land cannot be viewed as being used directly for the plaintiff's own business, and therefore, it does not meet the criteria for permission for the acquisition of the housing site to a corporation under Article 12 (1) 4 of the Act and Article 12 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 193; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree"), so it does not fall under the exemption from the imposition of charges under Article 20 (1) 8 of the Act and Article 26 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. The judgment below is correct and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles concerning the exemption from the imposition of charges due to incomplete.

2. The defendant's grounds of incidental appeal

Examining the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as Article 20(1)3 of the Act and Article 39-2(1) of the Building Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991), and Article 85(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192), and records, the judgment of the court below (attached Form 24) is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals and supplementary appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal and supplementary appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)