Requirements for the validity of registration of a variety;

Since it inevitably follows the transfer of the temple properties, it is necessary to take measures, such as approval of de-type or re-approval of the transfer of the properties belonging to the previous department, and permission of the competent agency to transfer the properties.

Article 16 of the Constitution, Article 11 of the Management of Buddhist Property Act

D. D. D. F. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T

Defendant 1 and three others

Suwon Branch Court of Seoul District Court (76 Gohap54,55)

All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

Defendant 2 among the buildings indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, indicated in the annexed sheet as follows: ① Section 6: 6: one influenite, Defendant 1, indicated in the annexed sheet as follows: (4) Section 7:8: one influenite, three influenite, and one influenite, three influenite, and the other influenite, 6:8 in part, 6: one in 9: one influenite, and the other in part,

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second trials.

First of all, we examine the main safety defense.

Defendant 1, 2, and 3’s legal representative are examined since the Plaintiff’s temple was not registered as an Buddhist organization pursuant to the Non-School Property Management Act, and thus, it is not a party’s ability and therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.

No. 1, No. 6, No. 9-1, No. 11, and No. 2, No. 15-2, No. 17, No. 21, and No. 4, No. 9-2, and No. 9-1, No. 7, No. 9-2, which were not registered for the first time with the permission of the head of the competent agency for the second time., No. 1, No. 3, No. 1, No. 4, No. 1, and No. 6-2, no dispute over the establishment of the second time, No. 9-1, No. 9, No. 1, and No. 2, No. 96-1, No. 9, which were registered for the first time by the head of the competent agency for the second time., No. 97, No.

However, since the freedom of religion is the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and is a form belonging to the freedom of religion, it is always permitted for natural persons, such as non-party 10, to break away from the previous religious wave to another religious wave, regardless of reasons. However, it inevitably follows the transfer of the temple property. Thus, it is necessary to take measures such as approval of the transfer of the properties belonging to the previous religious wave or approval of the alteration of the religious species, and permission of the transfer of the properties pursuant to Article 11 of the Act on the Management of Buddhist Property of the competent authorities. Since the above approval or permission of the religious species is completed and the previous registration is cancelled, it is not effective since the previous registration is cancelled without any reason, and it is no longer effective since the previous registration is cancelled, and it is decided that the non-party 10 continued to be dismissed from the previous inspection of the plaintiff's religious species, which belongs to the competent authorities without permission of the plaintiff 196, which belongs to the previous inspection of the plaintiff 196.

The following points are examined.

According to Gap's evidence No. 1, which is not disputed in the formation, it can be recognized that the building recorded in the separate sheet has been registered in the name of the plaintiff's temple on October 22, 1975 on the ground that the building in the separate sheet No. 24319 was received from the Seoul Civil District Court, and the transfer on October 10 of the same month was made under the name of the plaintiff's temple. Thus, the above building is presumed to be owned by the plaintiff's temple. In full view of the field inspection by the court below, the appraiser's appraisal results, and the whole purport of the pleading, the defendants can recognize the fact that the buildings

The defendants asserted that the above building is a property owned by the Korean Buddhist temple, which was divided into the Korean Buddhist temple type, which was removed from the Buddhist Buddhist temple type to the Korean Buddhist Buddhist temple type, and the registration was completed until the registration was made. The registration in the name of the plaintiff Buddhist temple concerning the above building was obtained from the non-party 10 who was not entitled to the non-party 10, and was transferred to the plaintiff temple and made a transfer to the plaintiff temple without the cause, and it was a registration of nullity lacking the cause. Therefore, even though the registration was opened as the Buddhist Buddhist temple type because the plaintiff Buddhist temple was separated from the Buddhist Buddhist Buddhist Cho Jong-chul type, it was null and void, and only the previous registration, which belongs to the Buddhist Buddhist Buddhist type, is valid, and there is no ground to reverse the plaintiff Buddhist temple's assertion that the above registration belongs to the plaintiff Buddhist Buddhist temple's non-party 1. Therefore, the above building's assertion that the above registration of the plaintiff Buddhist Buddhist temple was not a legitimate ground to believe that it belongs to the above plaintiff Buddhist temple's allegation.

Therefore, the defendants are obliged to clarify each part of the above building's possession without assertion and proof that there is a source of support for each possession of part of the above building against the plaintiff temple.

However, as to the part of the above building possessed by Defendant 4 in the trial, the defendant entered into a lease contract with the plaintiff's temple on January 7, 1976 on a deposit of KRW 2,300,000 on a deposit basis, and cancelled the above contract, the defendant's defense of simultaneous performance to the effect that the plaintiff's temple cannot respond to the request for surrender until the plaintiff's temple is returned because the above contract deposit is not returned. Thus, the plaintiff's defense of simultaneous performance is that the part of the above building's possession of the defendant 4 was already executed by the declaration of provisional execution. Thus, the plaintiff's defense of the above simultaneous performance is related to the requirements for commencement of execution. The execution by the judgment with the declaration of provisional execution is final and conclusive, and it cannot be said that the above defense of the defendant 4 is no longer necessary to look at.

Therefore, since the defendants are obliged to order the plaintiff to specify the part of possession of the above building, the plaintiff's claim of this case will be accepted in all. As such, the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the appeal by the defendants is all without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants who lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Judge) Final0