주지임명무효확인
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court shall add to the following parts of Chapter 5, Chapter 14, Part 5, and Part 6, Chapter 5, and Chapter 18, of the first instance court's decision; and (b) the addition of "A" in the preceding part of Chapter 7, Chapter 15, of the first instance court's "No. 6, and only the images of evidence No. 5," is the same as the entry in the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, and therefore, it shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The additional part argues that whether the plaintiffs have the interest to seek confirmation of the invalidation of the appointment of a chief inspector of the instant temple ex officio against the defendant in the instant lawsuit, the Minister of Health and Welfare, the land of the instant temple, and the plaintiffs, who are the owners of the buildings, are merely an association or a simple non-purpose facility not a juristic person, and if the plaintiffs' assertion is acknowledged, the right to appoint the chief inspector of the instant temple shall be vested in the plaintiffs. However, the defendant argued that D was appointed as chief inspector of the instant temple while arguing that the right to appoint the chief inspector of the instant temple belongs to the defendant as the subject of independent right and duty. Accordingly, D had completed the registration procedure for modification on March 30, 2015 pursuant to the Act on the Preservation and Support of Traditional Buddhist Temples (Evidence No. 5, the plaintiffs claiming that they hold the right to appoint chief inspector of the instant temple of this case, which has no effect on the defendant's right to seek confirmation of the appointment of the inspector of this case.