[소유권보존등기말소청구사건][고집1970민(2),112]
Where a Buddhist inspector serves as a place of inspection and expands, repairs, or constructs a building of members within the place of inspection, the ownership of the building of the member shall accrue.
Even if the winners were employed as a place of inspection and were extended, repaired or newly constructed within the temple, they are naturally owned by the temple, unless there is any special circumstance that the well-known person constructed a building for the purpose of his own private possession with his personal property.
Article 13 of the Buddhist Property Management Act
Supreme Court Decision 70Da2226 delivered on December 22, 1970
Macsium;
Defendant 1 and five others
Seoul Central District Court (68Ga3124) in the first instance trial
The appeal by the defendant, etc. is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.
The plaintiff's attorney and the defendant et al. performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of registration of ownership preservation in the name of the deceased non-party 1 (the defendant et al.'s heir of property), which was made on March 24, 196 to the plaintiff by the Seoul Civil & Security District Court Youngpo Registry on the real estate recorded in the attached list, and ordered the above real estate to be registered.
The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, etc.
The defendant et al. attorney shall revoke the original judgment.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
As to the real estate recorded in the attached list, the Seoul Civil District Court Youngpo District Office No. 8196 of March 24, 1967 received on the attached list, the registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of the deceased non-party 1 (the defendant et al.'s property heir). The deceased non-party 1 occupied the above real estate on October 22, 1968, and the defendant et al. did not clearly dispute the fact that he succeeded to the possession of the real estate, and thus, it shall be
As to the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party 1 did not own the plaintiff's temple and the non-party 2's non-party 1 did not have ownership preservation registration, the defendant et al. found the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1'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 1's non-party 2'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 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party
Therefore, the real estate stated in the attached list shall be the real estate owned by the plaintiff's temple, and the registration of preservation of the above statement shall be invalid without any cause and shall be bound to transfer the cancellation registration procedure to the plaintiff. In addition, in the case of this case where the defendants have legitimate title to possess the real estate in this case, the defendant, etc. shall be obligated to express to the plaintiff the real estate in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the performance of the plaintiff's claim is justified and the judgment of the court below is just, and the appeal by the defendant, etc. is without merit, and it shall be dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of appeal cost.
[Attachment List omitted]
Judges Jeong-won (Presiding Judge)