(a) Whether the inspection is appropriate for assisting the upper-tier group in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the registration of the inspection of the inspection;

(b) Ability of the persons concerned of an inspection which is not registered as an Buddhist organization;

A. The relationship between the inspection team and the inspection, which shall be approved by the final order on the disposal of the property, shall be determined by the existence of the contract between the final order and the inspection, and its contents. Since the inspection registration (the inspection registration of the plaintiff's suspension of the inspection of the plaintiff's suspension of the inspection of the plaintiff's suspension of the operation of the inspection of the inspection of the plaintiff) filed against the ordinary North Korean Dos branch by the plaintiff is not affected by the result of the final lawsuit, the final order does not have a legal relation to the defendant's ordinary North Korean Dos branch to participate in the subsidy

B. It is recognized that the Plaintiff’s temple was engaged in activities to achieve the purpose of the above establishment by establishing the Buddhist church and its affiliated building for the purpose of Buddhist church and the execution of law, etc., organizing the Shindo assembly, establishing the regulations on its property and the conduct of its affairs at its inaugural general meeting of the Shindo assembly, appointing its representative, and allowing him to take part in it, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s temple constitutes an unincorporated association, even if it is not registered as an unincorporated organization, and thus, constitutes an unincorporated association.

A. Article 65 of the Civil Procedure Act: Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 6 of the Non-School Property Management Act

Attorney Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Attorney Gyeong-do Governor, Counsel for the defendant-at-law

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in charge of the plaintiff-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 79Gu83 delivered on December 16, 1980

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff temple is subordinate to the assistant intervenor who is a higher-class subsidiary, and is obligated to obtain approval from the assistant intervenor as well as to dispose of the property and pay contributions to the temple. In this case, if the defendant loses the defendant, the assistant intervenor's application for the intervention on the ground that there is a legal interest in the result of the lawsuit as well as the termination of the status of subordinate contract as to the whole law and the relation between the assistant intervenor and the plaintiff's inspection, and the existence and content of the assistant intervenor's right to property and the existence of the assistant's right to property are determined by the existence of a contract under the private law and its contents as argued by the assistant intervenor, and there is no relationship between the assistant intervenor and the plaintiff's inspection's existence of inspection disposition and its substance, and even if it is confirmed that the inspection registration of the plaintiff's temple is invalid by the existence of inspection registration disposition, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's right to property status and the relation of the plaintiff's lawsuit cannot be viewed as null and void.

2. The defendant's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendant's ground of appeal No. 2 and 3 are examined.

According to the records, on April 1972, the deceased non-party 1, who is the deceased non-party 1, established the Buddhist church and its affiliated building on the ground of 285-4, Dong-gu, Daegu for the purpose of carrying on the Buddhist church and the law enforcement of the law, edification of believers, welfare projects, and other projects to achieve the above objectives, and established the Buddhist church and its affiliated building on the ground of 285-4, Dong-gu, Dong-dong, Daegu for the purpose of his name, and organized the Dong-dong Council, and donated the real estate recorded in the attached list of the judgment of the court below, including the above Buddhist church and its affiliated building, with the intention of determining its intention and managing it with the name of the Dong-dong, and the organization to carry out its affairs as well as the registration and administration of it as the name of the association of the deceased non-party 1, who was the representative of the association and the association of non-party 2, who was not a prescribed representative of the association of non-party 1, who had the capacity to establish the association of non-party 2, as its representative.

On the other hand, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant's application for the registration of the non-permanent organization was defective and obvious, and the defect was made at the request of the non-representative against the plaintiff's will against the plaintiff's inspection's representative, and the non-party 3 and the non-party 4, who is not the chief of the plaintiff's inspection or the representative, conspired with the plaintiff's inspection, and without the plaintiff's permission, and registered the plaintiff's inspection in the Korean Buddhist Order and the non-party 4 was appointed to be widely known from the above end group, and then the plaintiff's application for the registration of the non-permanent organization was made by attaching relevant documents, such as the inspection registration certificate of the above end group and the certificate of widely known duty, and found that the defendant's disposition of the inspection was made at the request of the non-representative's representative against the plaintiff's representative's will, and thus the defect was null and void. The court below's fact-finding and decision are justified.

The author argues that the existence of the right to represent the temple should be decided solely by the existence of the registration stipulated in Article 9 of the Buddhist Property Management Act, and that it should be deemed legitimate unless the inspection is registered by the representative who was registered as a reason in the inside of the inspection, but it is merely an independent opinion.

All arguments are groundless.

3. The defendant's ground of appeal No. 3 and the defendant's ground of appeal No. 4 are examined.

The judgment of the court below is identical to the theory of the lawsuit that the registered titleholder on the real estate owned by the plaintiff temple recognizes the fact that the registration of change was cancelled because the registered titleholder was changed from the registered titleholder to the Korean Buddhist master and the registration of change was cancelled. However, the court below, on its own basis, did not consider the defendant's registration of the temple itself as invalid, on the ground that the registration of change was made upon the application of the non-party 3 and the non-party 4. In this regard, the court below recognized the registration of change that the registered titleholder was punished as the non-indicted 3 and the non-party 4's non-indicted 3 and the non-party 4 who filed an application for the registration of the temple in this case with the defendant on the premise that the registration of the plaintiff temple was invalid, and on the premise that the registration of the temple is invalid, it is clear in light of the context before and after the judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law by confusion between the registration of the temple and the registration of the non-party 4's property as the plaintiff temple.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendant and the Intervenor are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)