A. Whether the proviso of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act applies to a case where an application for an appeal is dismissed on the ground that it does not fall under the grounds for applying for an appeal

(b) Power of representative of temple located in the place of subsequent appointment after being appointed as chief widely notified, if he/she has died;

A. The proviso of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act purports to restrict a party who filed an appeal from filing a lawsuit seeking retrial when he/she asserted, or did not know, grounds constituting grounds for a retrial. Thus, the foregoing provision does not apply where an application for a final appeal was dismissed on the ground that the grounds that do not constitute grounds for a request for a final

B. If the successor land has not yet been registered as the place of office after the death of the person who was registered as the chief public official at the competent agency in accordance with the Act on the Management of Buddhist Property, the chief public official who was duly known and appointed in accordance with the regulations of the inspection and the subordinate organization shall be entitled to represent the inspection even without being registered as

A. Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4203, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Act No. 4203, Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu1206 Decided July 11, 1989 (Gong1989, 1214) (Gong1990, 447)

Korean Buddhist Cho Jae-gu 14 principal offender Kim Jong-gu, Kim Jong-gu, Attorney Park Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Attorney Lee Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 92Na21 delivered on June 10, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant (Plaintiffs for retrial).

1. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant (the plaintiff in a retrial, the defendant's abbreviation)

The grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act include forgery or alteration of documents or any other article admitted as evidence for judgment. "When a document or any other article is forged or altered," the preparation of false public document that can be punished by a criminal trial is identical to the theory of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Da557, Sep. 28, 1982; 89Meu6812, Aug. 14, 1990; 89Meu6812, etc.). However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the preparation of a false public document, unless it is proved that the statute of limitations has expired and it is impossible to make a final judgment of conviction due to the completion of the act of preparing a false public document, and thus, it can be accepted that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for retrial under Article 26 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act refer to cases where a forged or altered document was adopted as evidence to acknowledge the fact that it forms the basis for maintaining the text of the judgment, so long as the forged or altered document is not adopted as evidence to acknowledge the facts subject to retrial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Nu473, Jan. 18, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 91Da27495, Nov. 10, 1992; 91Da27495, Nov. 10, 1992). The judgment of the court below with this purport is just and acceptable. The evidence No. 23-2, 3, 6, 7 and evidence No. 24-2, etc. of the judgment subject to retrial should be deemed to have been adopted as evidence by the expression of the preceding purport of pleading, or whether such evidence was adopted as evidence, it cannot be accepted in its independent opinion that the judgment of the court below should be decided based on whether such evidence had an effect on the judgment.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that there was grounds for a retrial in the judgment subject to a retrial that was otherwise determined by the lower court, despite the absence of the qualification to represent the Plaintiff’s temple as the representative of the Plaintiff’s temple, on the grounds that the Defendant’s application for a final appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial was obvious in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial even though the Defendant asserted the above grounds as the grounds for the application for a final appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial, the fact that the application for a final appeal was dismissed is apparent in light of the records of the judgment subject to a retrial. As such, the Defendant’s

B. The proviso of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the appeal shall not be filed if the party who filed an appeal claims or does not know of the grounds constituting grounds for a retrial by appeal. Thus, the above provision shall not apply to cases where an application for a final appeal is dismissed by asserting the grounds that do not constitute grounds for a final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu1206, Jul. 11, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 89Meu21309, Nov. 28, 1989; etc.); and Article 12(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4203, Nov. 13, 1990). In this case, the above grounds alleged by the defendant as grounds for a final appeal against the judgment subject to final appeal cannot be legitimate grounds for final appeal. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the proviso of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment subject to a retrial, the non-party was entitled to the registration of the non-party as its representative on October 15, 1930 and the non-party, who was registered as the non-party foundation's representative on the 1930th and the building on the 1930th and the non-party, as the non-party foundation's name and building on the 8th and the 195th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th and the 196th had been registered.

The decisions by the Defendant on the members of the inspection committee held that, even though the inspection was selected as the chief inspector, if there is a separate knowledge of non-registration and registration, it is not appropriate to use the case in this case because the matter is different.

D. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that there is no ground for retrial by the defendant is just, and the above illegality committed by the court below is not considered to have influenced the judgment, and thus, it cannot be accepted the argument that the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act.

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)