(a) Whether the chief knowledge of the inspection is effective where he/she disposes of the inspection property without internal procedures, such as resolution or approval of the inspection team to which he/she belongs (affirmative);

(b) Whether the act of recognizing possession of the property, which is not necessary for the performance of the purposes of inspection and the existence thereof, is valid, where the act is done without permission of the competent authority, on the grounds that the possession of the property is admitted to a final wave, which is different from the attached order (affirmative)

(c) Where an inspection team which has different species of the inspection building under its control has removed the building from the person who was destroyed by a legitimate title and the existing building has been built with the gold of the new inspection team, the ownership of the building shall accrue if the existing building was built with the gold of the inspection team;

A. Since the right to manage and dispose of the temple property is entrusted to the chief inspector representing the temple, even if the chief inspector of the temple did not go through internal procedures, such as a resolution or approval by the final order to which he/she belongs, the disposition of the temple property is effective.

(b) Disposition of any property which is unnecessary for the performance and existence of the inspection itself shall not be null and void or disposed of to the general public regardless of the permission of the competent authorities, but shall be valid, regardless of whether it does not constitute disposition of the basic property of the inspection, where the property continues to be offered for the performance of the inspection purposes, because it does not constitute disposition of the basic property of the inspection, and it does not constitute the permission of the competent authorities.

C. If a building which constitutes the entity of an inspection was constructed with a contribution from a new village, it shall be at the same time as the completion of the inspection, but thereafter, it shall be deemed that the building is owned by the inspection team, if the inspection team, which is different from the inspection team, occupies the inspection building with legitimate title, removes the building from the end of the inspection, and constructs the existing building with the proceeds of its new construction, it shall be deemed that the building is owned by the inspection team on the end of the inspection.

A. Article 9(b) of the former Act on the Management of Buddhist Property (repealed by the Traditional Temples Preservation Act, Law No. 3974 of Nov. 28, 1987)

(a) Supreme Court Decision 91Da9336 delivered on June 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1924). Supreme Court Decision 80Da1588 delivered on December 22, 1981 (Gong1982,172)

Han Blue J. J. P. C. O.C. O.C. O. O.C., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na17407 delivered on February 26, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the inspection of this case on the registry was occupied by the defendant's ○○○○ Cancer, it had been occupied by the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who had been widely known of the plaintiff's inspection, on behalf of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, on behalf of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2, on behalf of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 3, on behalf of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2, on behalf of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, on behalf of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1, on which the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, on behalf of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2, on behalf of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 3, on behalf of the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, on behalf of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 3, on behalf of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1.

If the facts are identical to this, the plaintiff is either actually transferred the temple property of this case to the straw side or, at least, it should be deemed that the building and the site of the temple were possessed by the third party, not the above non-party 1, and that the plaintiff agreed not to exercise his right such as a request for evacuation.

In addition, since the right to manage and dispose of the temple property is entrusted to the chief inspector representing the temple, even if the above non-party 2 did not go through internal procedures, such as a resolution or approval of the attached inspection group, the disposal is effective, and the disposal of the property unnecessary for the purpose and existence of the inspection is null and void regardless of the permission of the competent government office. Although the building of this case is not a disposal of the temple property to the general public as in this case, it is not a disposal of the temple property to the general public, but it is valid regardless of the permission of the competent government office, if the property is continuously offered for the purpose of the inspection, because it does not fall under the disposal of the inspection's basic property, and it is valid regardless of the permission of the competent government office.

In addition, if a building which forms the substance of a temple was constructed with a contribution from a new road, it is argued that it will be owned by the temple at the same time as the completion of the construction. However, as in this case, if the building is demolished while it occupies the temple building with a legitimate title and the building was built with a gold of the new building, it should be deemed that the building is owned by the stalth and the stalth and the end of the building.

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting all the plaintiff's main claim and the preliminary claim for removal of new buildings, which seeks to specify the whole building of the temple, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as

The Supreme Court precedents cannot be said to be necessarily inconsistent with the above judgment. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)