(a) Whether a church may alter its intersection, even though there is no provision concerning the withdrawal from the affiliated intersection's rules;

(b) The case holding that the registration of a church's dividend building and its site in the name of its affiliated church constitutes a kind of title trust, since it is based on the purport of a new list, etc. of its affiliated church;

C. Whether the permission of the competent Minister is required for the transfer registration for the return of title trust real estate incorporated into the basic property of an incorporated foundation (affirmative)

A. There is only a provision concerning the joining and disciplinary action of the affiliated school regulations, and even if there is no provision concerning the withdrawal, in general, a church may change its affiliated school groups if it is based on the total of the members.

B. The case holding that the registration of a church's wedding building and its site in the name of its affiliated church constitutes a kind of title trust, since it is limited to the purport of a new list of its affiliated church members.

C. Matters pertaining to basic property of a foundation foundation are matters to be stated in the articles of incorporation, which result in the modification of the articles of incorporation, and therefore, the act of disposing of the existing basic property, as well as the act of incorporating it into the basic property, is valid only with the permission of the competent Minister. On the other hand, in a case where the basic property is incorporated into the basic property with the permission of the competent Minister and becomes a part of the matters to be stated in the articles of incorporation, even if it was in a title trust relationship, the disposal thereof (return) cannot be registered without the permission of the competent Minister, as it

A. Article 68(b) of the Civil Act. Article 186 / [title trust] (c) Article 45

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Meu730 decided Feb. 8, 1985 (Gong1985, 417) (Gong1985, 1323) (Gong1985, 1323). Supreme Court Decision 78Da783 decided Jul. 25, 1978 (Gong1978, 1102) (Gong102) 82Meu499 decided Sep. 28, 1982 (Gong1982, 1012)

Attorney Kim Sung-sung, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant at the Sung-sung branch of the Gaosung;

Attorney Park Jong-ho, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na32243 delivered on August 31, 1990

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff church held that the real estate of this case was trusted in title to the defendant under the circumstances as stated in its reasoning by the court below is such act without recognizing the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of the defendant's name with respect to the real estate of this case was the object of securing the claim, and it is nothing more than the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's assertion that the real estate of this case was trusted in title to the defendant.

Therefore, when the court below recognizes that the plaintiff church held the real estate title trust to the defendant, it cannot be said that it did not reject the defendant's assertion of the lawsuit separately, and there is no reason for the argument.

On the second ground for appeal

A. According to the evidence cited by the court below (the testimony of the court below and the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3 of the first instance court witness), even though a church property has not been registered in the name of the defendant foundation, the church property may be admitted to the Korea Association of the Modemy (hereinafter referred to as the "pademy") and the church property shall be incorporated into the defendant foundation. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff registered his church property under the name of the defendant. Thus, it shall be deemed that the court below recognized that the rules of the Modemy assembly that the church property may be admitted as a member even if it was not registered in the name of the defendant at the 71st general meeting of the court below, it shall be deemed that there is no influence on the result of the case.

B. Article 22 of the Eul evidence 3 (Rules of the Korean War Association) provides that the members of the church may withdraw through the resolution of the church and the associates of the local council, but subparagraph 10 (Rules) of the Eul evidence 10 only provides for admission and disciplinary action, and that there is no provision concerning withdrawal. However, in general, in the case of a church in the total of its members, it shall be deemed that the members can change the affiliated church (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 73Da442, 443, Aug. 21, 1973; Supreme Court Decision 84Meu730, Feb. 8, 1985); and the time when the plaintiff church joined the bedroom (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Da730, Nov. 20, 1972).

C. If withdrawal from the plaintiff church is valid, as recognized by the court below, it is an essential organization to guarantee independence between religious organizations or members of the church that share the doctrine, and the church mainly registers the building site of the church to the defendant. Even if the church members registered the transfer of its property to the defendant, the defendant merely incorporates it into the foundation's basic property and does not use it directly or make profits from it. The plaintiff church's first does not have any restriction on the use of the property as before, but it is necessary for the plaintiff church members to join the church's association's own property to obtain a loan from the plaintiff church's members association, and it is not necessary for the plaintiff church members association to use it as a new property in the name of the defendant's own property, and it is not necessary for the plaintiff's association to use it as a new property in the name of the defendant's own property, and it is not necessary for the plaintiff's association to use it as a new property in the name of the defendant's own property, and it is not necessary for the plaintiff church members to use it as a new property.

Unless otherwise, even though the plaintiff church withdraws from a bed, it is unfair that the place of worship (building and site) which serves as the basis for its existence is not returned, and the plaintiff church formed a formal gift contract (Evidence No. 4) at the time of joining the bed Association, and it cannot be said that there is an obstacle to the fact-finding or decision as above.

D. However, since matters pertaining to basic property of an incorporated foundation, which are matters to be stated in the articles of incorporation, are subject to the permission of the competent Minister because the modification of basic property would result in the modification of the articles of incorporation, and therefore, the act of disposing of the existing basic property, as well as the act of incorporating the foundation into the basic property, is valid without the permission of the competent Minister (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 78Da783, Jul. 25, 1978; 82Meu499, Sept

Therefore, the court below should examine whether the real estate in this case was incorporated into a basic property with the permission of the competent Minister, and if it was incorporated into a basic property with the permission of the competent Minister, and whether the competent Minister's permission was granted to transfer (or return) it to the plaintiff or non-party 4, and determine whether the request for registration of transfer was proper. On the other hand, where the real estate in this case was incorporated into the basic property with the permission of the competent Minister and made a part of the matters to be entered in the articles of incorporation, even if it was entered into a title trust relationship, it would not result in the modification of the articles of incorporation. Thus, the registration of transfer without the permission of the competent

E. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the alteration of fundamental property, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

2. As to the plaintiff's incidental appeal

The incidental appeal may continue to file the final appeal, but the period for submitting the final appeal is the same as the period for submitting the final appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da633, 851 delivered on July 24, 1979).

Upon examining the record, on October 17, 1990, the plaintiff was served with the defendant on October 18 of the same year on the notification of the receipt of the trial records, and the plaintiff submitted the supplementary appellate brief on October 23 of the same year, which was within the deadline for submitting the appellate brief, but the plaintiff did not state the supplementary appellate brief on the supplementary appellate brief, and it is evident that the supplementary appellate brief was filed on November 9 of the same year.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's incidental appellate brief was not timely filed, it is necessary to dismiss the judgment on the grounds of incidental appeal in accordance with Article 399 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which reversed the defendant's failure portion and remanded this part of the case to the court below. The plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal to the defendant are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)