If the donation of the inspection property is impossible to achieve the objectives of the inspection and the existence of the inspection is in danger to its existence, the donation of the inspection property shall be null and void, even with the permission of the competent authority.

If the donation of the inspection property is impossible to achieve the objectives of the inspection and is to the extent that it threatens the existence of the inspection itself, it shall be null and void in spite of the permission of the competent authority.

Article 11 of the Buddhist Property Management Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da879 delivered on June 2, 1964

Military branch office (Attorney Shin-yang, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Hegic disease (Attorney Dohn-su, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 68Na644 delivered on July 10, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

The interpretation of Article 81 of the Civil Act provides that even if a corporation is dissolved and completes its settlement and completed its registration, the real estate owned by another person shall be registered for the transfer of ownership in the name of the corporation, and as long as the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration is pending, the juristic person with respect to the existence of the obligation of cancellation shall not be yet extinguished. The real owner of one real estate may file a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration made in his/her own name on the basis of the unlawful registration on the real estate or the registration thereof, and as a joint defendant may seek the cancellation of the registration made in his/her name. In the latter case, the lawsuit cannot be deemed as a simple co-litigation and a necessary co-litigation or a necessary co-litigation. Nevertheless, the theory on the validity of the registration of the establishment of the private teaching institute is an independent opinion on the establishment of the private teaching institute, which is based on the above opinion that the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the registration made in order based on the above co-litigation with respect to each of the above joint-litigation by the defendant.

The second ground for appeal shall be determined.

The inspection was a non-permanent and non-permanent organization with the aim of finding the non-party's past law, enforcing the law and fostering the believers's edification, and thus, it was against the law of the non-party 1's old and present status of the non-party 2's possession and disposal of the non-party 1's old and present status of the non-party 1's own land and structures for the purpose of raising the 6's old and present trees, and thus, it was against the law of the non-party 2's old and present status of the non-party 1's old and present status of the non-party 2's old and present status of the non-party 3's old and present state of the non-party 1's old and present status of the non-party 2's old and present status of the non-party 4's old and present state of the non-party 1's old and present state of the non-party 2's past opinion on the non-party 3's old and present value of the inspection.

The third point of the Dong shall be examined.

In addition, the court below rejected the defendant's defense, as stated in the theory of lawsuit, that the plaintiff's donation to the Maritime Institute on the land in dispute was a trust disposal act (the actual ownership of the above forest for the purpose of establishing the Maritime Institute was owned by the plaintiff temple and only in the name of the Maritime Institute), so it cannot be said that the plaintiff's donation was impossible to achieve the purpose of the inspection of the plaintiff and that it was an act endangering the existence of the inspection, and that it was an act under the name of the Maritime Institute. (The court below recognized that the above forest had already been registered as ownership transfer registration in the Maritime Institute, and that the above forest had already been recognized as the establishment of the Maritime Institute on the premise of the donation of the above forest, and that the Maritime Institute was composed of complete property within and outside the boundary of the Maritime Institute on the donation of the above Maritime Institute, and that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal principles as seen above that the above donation was invalid because it did not constitute an act in violation of trust relation.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu