1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by D.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around October 20, 1962, F (legal name G) constructed a wooden flag, a 77mm2, a wooden flag, a wooden flag, and a 45m2 housing roof on the ground of the 3,978m2 of the land for religion in Gangwon-do (the administrative district and its lot number were changed to Y, Y, and E), which is a state-owned land, and built B-type housing.

B. On November 7, 1967, F drafted a donation contract with the effect that B shall donate all the property of B including the above building to B, “B, as designated by the religious organization’s religious organization’s religious organization’s religious organization’s religious organization’s religious organization’s religious organization’s religious organization’s religious organization’s religious organization’s religious organization’.

C. On April 17, 1973, I succeeded to the status of building owner and well-known of B company, and I, upon all removal of B company's existing building and donation from new Dos around 1993, through which I constructed new buildings, such as 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D' on the ground of the land indicated in the foregoing paragraph (a).

On November 24, 2014, the A Religious Organization appointed the Defendant (Law Name K) as the chief minister of B, but the Defendant submitted a letter of sprink around May 27, 2017, and on September 6, 2017, dismissed the Defendant from the chief minister of B on the grounds of double sponsing, etc., and appointed D (Legal Name L) on November 17, 2017 as the chief minister of B.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 13, 20, 24, 25 (Partial number omitted, hereinafter the same shall apply)

(1) Each entry, the result of the commission of appraisal to the branch office of the Korea Land Information Corporation in this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

가. 당사자의 주장 피고는 먼저, B사는 사유사암(私有私庵)으로서 불교목적시설에 불과하여 독립한 사찰로서의 실체가 없으므로 원고에게 당사자능력이 없다고 주장하고, 다음으로 원고에게 당사자능력이 있다고 하더라도 창건주의 지위를 갖는 피고의 동의 없이 주지로 임명된 D에게는 대표권이 없다고 주장하면서 이 사건 소가...