(a) In case where the transfer registration of ownership by sale without the permission of the competent Minister is made by a final and conclusive judgment with respect to the forest owned by the temple, whether it conflicts with the lawsuit demanding cancellation of the registration and res judicata effect (affirmative);

(b) The deadline for filing an additional appeal (when the deadline for filing an appellate brief expires);

A. In a case where the ownership transfer registration based on the sale was made based on the final judgment without permission of the competent authority with respect to the forest owned by the temple, the claim for cancellation of the above transfer registration based on the absence of the above permission is contrary to the res judicata of the above final judgment.

(b)Appellee may be deemed to be an incidental appeal even after the right to appeal is extinguished, but it cannot be made after the expiration of the period for submitting the appellate brief, and the incidental appeal filed after the expiration is unlawful.

Article 11 of the Buddhist Property Management Act, Articles 202, 395, and 372 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da825 Decided September 17, 1968, 68Da882, 883, 884, 885 Decided July 8, 1969

Plaintiff 1 and 11 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Yong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na397,398 delivered on September 11, 1980

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

The supplementary appeal by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be dismissed.

The costs of the lawsuit incurred by the appeal by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the costs of the lawsuit incurred by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. We examine the thickness of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter the Defendant is only the Defendant)’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below, since the above disposition of the forest land of this case, which is owned by the defendant who is a Buddhist organization, was caused by the sale without the permission of the competent Minister for the transfer of part of ownership on December 14, 1949, including the deceased non-party et al., who is the deceased non-party et al., who is the deceased non-party et al., the deceased non-party et al., who is the deceased non-party et al., the plaintiff 1, 2, and 3, and the above disposition of the forest land of this case constitutes a trade without the permission of the competent Minister, and even if the above disposition of the forest land threatens to the existence of the temple, the above sale is null and void, and thus the above registration of this case is sought for the execution of the cancellation registration procedure of the above registration for the ground of the invalid sale, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and the judgment of the first instance court's rejection of the above judgment.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is examined as to the supplementary appeal.

Article 372 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that Article 372 of the same Act as to the appellate procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis to the court of final appeal even after the right to appeal is extinguished. Thus, in light of the difference in structure between the appellate court and the court of final appeal in the procedure of final appeal and the fact that the notification of receipt of the written appeal is received, the time when the appeal can be filed shall be deemed to be the time when the period for submission of the written appeal corresponding to the time when the written appeal is closed at the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decisions 68Da825 delivered on September 17, 1968 and 68Da882,83,884,885 delivered on July 8, 1969). Accordingly, in this case, the plaintiffs are obvious that the plaintiffs raised the supplementary appeal of this case only on November 28 of the last year of the period for submission of the written appeal for final appeal after receiving the written notice of receipt of the records of final appeal on November 7, 1980.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as without merit. The plaintiffs' incidental appeal is dismissed as it is unlawful. The costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jong-woo (Presiding Justice)