According to Articles 6 (1) 2 and 6 (5) of the former Traditional Temple Preservation Act and Article 7 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, etc., Article 6 (1) 2 and 6 (5) of the same Act and Article 7 (2) of the same Act provide that an act of disposal, such as lending, transferring, offering security, etc., shall be permitted by the Minister of Culture and Sports, and any disposition contrary thereto shall be null and void. Thus, even if such act of disposal is a procedure for compulsory auction, it shall not be deemed null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da2136, Aug. 20, 1981; 93Da4293, Jan. 25, 1994; 93Nu2784, Sept. 27, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on evidence, etc., and according to the facts, the transfer registration of ownership in the judgment of Defendant 1, which was made without the permission of the Minister of Culture and Sports to dispose of the forest land of this case within the boundaries of the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act, is a registration of invalidation which lacks legitimate cause, and the transfer registration of ownership in the judgment of Defendant 2, which was made based on it, is also a registration of invalidation.

In light of the records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is proper that the court below's evidence preparation, fact-finding, and judgment is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provisions on the prohibition of seizure of land, buildings, etc. under the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act, due to the violation of the

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Cho Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)