Whether an agreement on the payment of money consumed for the management of inspection constitutes the transfer of the inspection property (negative)

The payment agreement of money and valuables consumed for the management of inspection does not correspond to the transfer of the inspection property under Article 11(1) of the Buddhist Property Management Act, so it is not the permission of the competent authorities.

Article 11 of the Buddhist Property Management Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1156 Delivered on July 8, 1980

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 82Na768 delivered on March 9, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined.

According to the records, this case constitutes a small-sum case as provided in Article 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, and Article 3 of the same Act provides that a final appeal may be filed only when the decision on the violation of laws, orders, rules or dispositions, or the violation of the Constitution, orders, rules or dispositions, or the decision of the Supreme Court is unfair and the decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents is rendered with respect to such small-sum case. However, the gist of the judgment of the court below is that the plaintiff managed ○○ History and the defendant decided to subsidize the expenses for the access road construction for the creation of a site for the construction of a temple while managing ○○ History, and that the plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 1 million from the defendant as the result of the above inspection's excessive right to manage the temple, and that the above agreement does not constitute a matter subject to permission from the competent authorities under each subparagraph of Article 11 (1) of the Buddhist Property Management Act, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for final appeal, and it does not seem that there is no illegality in the judgment of the court below as well-founded to the grounds for final appeal.

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

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)