Where the disposition of the inspection property permitted by the Minister concerned is null and void.

If the disposal of the inspection property causes the loss of the existence and existence of the inspection itself and the danger of it or the impossibility of achieving the purpose of it, such disposal shall be null and void even if it is conducted through certain procedures, such as obtaining permission from the Minister concerned.

Article 11 of the Buddhist Property Management Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da1432 delivered on November 25, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 63Da879 delivered on June 2, 1963, Supreme Court Decision 12Da139 delivered on June 2, 196, Supreme Court Decision 12Da139 delivered on June 2, 196, Supreme Court Decision 15Da1432 delivered on November 25, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 858 delivered on November 858, Supreme Court Decision 17No48 delivered on June 2, 196, Supreme Court Decision 11(8)1576 pages)

Jina Maritime Officer;

Defendant 1 and nine others

Daegu District Court of First Instance (67Ga3496)

All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

. With respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, and 4, Defendant 2 is the Daegu District Court No. 2295, Feb. 27, 1964; with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 2, 1960. Oct. 8, 1960; and with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 2, 9, 100. Oct. 16, 1962; with respect to the transfer registration stated in the separate sheet No. 7674, Mar. 5, 1962; with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 3, Jun. 3, 1959;

On January 25, 1965, Defendant 1 performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the same day as that of the same registry office No. 5485 on January 25, 1965 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1, Defendant 2 as to the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the same day.

Defendant 2 is listed in the Schedule Nos. 1, 2, 9, and 10; Defendant 3 is listed in the Schedule Nos. 3, 4, 5 is listed in the Schedule No. 5; Defendant 6 is listed in the Schedule No. 6; Defendant 7 is listed in the Schedule No. 7; Defendant 8 is listed in the Schedule No. 8; Defendant 9 is listed in the Schedule No. 11; Defendant 10 is handed over the real estate listed in the Schedule No. 12.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The termination of the nuclear power failure shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

First, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party 5 with the same content as this case and the judgment becomes final and conclusive. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the non-party 5 is unlawful in accordance with the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy, and even if it does not so, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party 5, the previous owner of the forest as stated in the order, as it is alleged that the lawsuit is unlawful. Thus, according to the records, the above forest land's ownership is also transferred in succession from the plaintiff to the non-party 6 foundation and the non-party 5, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for this case on the ground that the registration becomes null and void. In this case, the plaintiff did not need to simultaneously file a lawsuit against all of the above related parties, and even if the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party 5, the previous owner of the forest as stated in the order, and the judgment against the non-party 5 became final and conclusive, there is no ground for defense against the defendants' objection against the same contents.

Next, there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 1-1-2, 12 (Judgment, and certified copy of register) and the facts of occupying each forest stated in the purport of the claim by the defendants other than the defendant 1, as it was originally owned by the plaintiff, but the ownership of the forest above was transferred to the non-party 6 incorporated foundation due to the donation on February 7, 1956 to the non-party 5, and transferred to the non-party 5 with the permission of successful bid at the Daegu District Court on January 16, 1959, as stated in the purport of the claim. Thus, considering the contents stated in the non-party 1-2 and the non-party 7's testimony on February 9, 1956, the plaintiff inspection (the non-party 8) donated the forest above to the non-party 6, and the non-party 1-2 witness's testimony cannot be acknowledged as being contrary to the evidence No. 1-2's testimony after the permission of the witness's testimony or testimony.

However, without dispute over the establishment of Gap's evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 7 (Verification Protocol, Witness Examination Protocol) and each on-site inspection result of the court below and the party's pleadings, considering the whole purport of the party's arguments as to non-party 12's representative, the plaintiff's temple is constructed at the time of the 1,200 new Dominction, which has 240 pieces of the current 240 Dominction, and is composed of the head office of the 35 Domincation and 245 square meters of the current 24 Dominction and its affiliated buildings, and it is also impossible for the plaintiff's head office and its affiliated buildings to achieve the purpose of the inspection's existence and non-party 6 Domincation, and there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of the plaintiff's new marction and inspection's new marction for the purpose of removing the plaintiff's new marction and its affiliated buildings.

The defendants asserted that the transfer of the above forest land to the non-party 6 is not a donation, but a title trust is effective, and even if the plaintiff made a family donation, it is effective with the permission of the competent Minister for the non-party 6 and there is a lot of property besides the above forest land. The defendant 7 asserts that the defendant again acquired the forest land listed in the annexed Table 7 in good faith and is valid since the defendant acquired it in good faith. Thus, as seen above, as long as the above forest land is a family title trust, so long as the transfer of the plaintiff's act is a gift which is not a title trust, it shall be deemed that it is an external disposal act, a title trust shall be null and void, as long as it is a property which is essential for the existence and existence of the plaintiff's temple as above, and there is no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff transferred the above forest land to the non-party 6 for the non-party 6, and even if there is a lot of property other than the above forest land, it shall be null and void as long as the above forest land has been acquired in good faith.

Therefore, the Defendants’ respective registrations stated in the purport of the claim are cancelled, and the Defendants, other than Defendant 1, have the obligation to deliver each of their forests and fields stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff. Thus, all of the Plaintiff’s claims shall be justified and accepted. Therefore, since the original judgment is justifiable, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 93, and 89 of the

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)