보관금반환
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit is the representative of the Plaintiff.
The Defendants asserted that the Defendants, the heir of Nonparty J, should pay the above money in proportion to their shares of inheritance, and that the Defendants filed the instant lawsuit. The Defendants asserted that: (a) (b) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (i) (ii) (i) (ii) (ii) (iii) (i) (ii) (iii) (i) (ii) (iii) (ii) (ii) (iii) (iii) (i) (iii) (ii) (iii) (ii) (iii) (iii) (iii) (iv) (i.e., (iv)) (i) (i., (ii) (i) (i) (i.e., (iii)) (i) (i.) (ii) (i.e., (iii) (i) (i.,
As to this, the Defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed due to the lack of the Plaintiff’s party capacity, on the grounds that the Plaintiff is merely a federation of individual cancers, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed the subject of rights and obligations in a single independent entity.
The legal reasoning and inspection on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit and the legal capacity of the inspection, as well as on the capacity of the inspection, is carried out with facilities to declare the doctrine of the doctrine of the Buddhist, and is an organization of the new Do, which is an organization of the inspection, and the inspection has the substance as an independent inspection. In order for the inspection to have the substance as an independent inspection, there are property of the inspection, such as the Buddhist party, which is a physical element, there is a considerable number of believers, including the awareness, and there is a need for the inspection to carry out social activities with its own life with the rules as an organization.
On the other hand, a private temple, which was created by an individual, such as a Buddhist temple or a believers, and has been managed and operated by an individual, is merely a facility for the purpose of the Buddhist temple owned by the individual, and it cannot be the subject of independent rights.
(See Supreme Court Decision 99Da42179 delivered on January 30, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2003Da54971 delivered on June 24, 2005). Whether a temple is an individual inspection, an unincorporated association, or a foundation may be an independent right holder.