Ownership of a building constructed for the construction of a temple;

If buildings which form the substance of the inspection were constructed for the purpose of building the inspection, the ownership of the building shall be acquired at the same time as the construction of the inspection.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu138 Decided December 9, 1986

[Defendant-Appellee] Jeongdo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Defendant 1 and 10 Defendants, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 85Na631 delivered on February 11, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. For its reasons, the judgment of the court below recognized the plaintiff's inspection as being legally aware of the fact that the plaintiff's inspection had the ability of the plaintiff's inspection of this case since it was decided on May 1940 that the plaintiff's inspection of this case had the ability to be a party in this case based on the records, and that the fact-finding and decision of the court below are just and acceptable in light of the records, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the ability to be a party in this case, since the fact-finding of the plaintiff's inspection was completed on October 10, 1962 as the non-party 1, who is the current chief knowledge of the plaintiff's inspection, was legally well-known in accordance with the constitution of the law of the above legal category as of October 25, 1982.

2. As seen earlier, if the building of this case, which constitutes the substance of the Plaintiff’s inspection, was constructed for the purpose of the construction of the Plaintiff’s inspection, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the building of this case at the same time as the Plaintiff’s construction of the inspection (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu138, Dec. 9, 1986). Thus, even if Nonparty 2, the fleet of the Defendants, purchased the real estate of this case from the deceased Nonparty 3 and completed the registration of preservation of ownership in his front, the presumption of the registration power is broken, and the above Nonparty 2 cannot be excluded from the ownership of the Plaintiff’s inspection on the real estate of this case with registration only, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the fact that the said Nonparty 2 lawfully purchased the real estate from the person with the authority to dispose of it, or that there was the permission of the competent authorities to dispose of it.

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, at the time of the new construction of the plaintiff temple based on evidence, the court below has duly confirmed the fact that the building, which constitutes the real property of this case, is maintaining its identity by being expanded and reconstructed several times as the real property of this case, since the building, which constitutes the real property of this case, maintains its identity, even if it is somewhat different from the property registration situation of the Buddhist church, and there are some arguments that partly manipulated the building management register in accordance with the building management register, even if the building of this case, which constitutes the real property of the plaintiff temple, is not the ownership of the plaintiff temple, and the building of this case is not the ownership of the plaintiff temple.

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)