(a) Reversion of the temple property registered as an Buddhist organization pursuant to the old Buddhist Property Management Act;

(b) Whether the final end of the inspection is changed, in case where a resolution is passed to complete the inspection without following the final constitution of the first attached religious group, and a new will and a Buddhist will be combined;

A. A temple registered as an Buddhist organization pursuant to the former Buddhist Property Management Act (repealed by the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act, Law No. 3974 of Nov. 28, 1987) based on the property of a temple existing in the past is deemed to have the character as a foundation with no legal capacity. Thus, even if the temple has contributed to the creation of the temple's property, the property of the temple is not owned jointly by the believers and the Buddhist temple itself but owned by the Buddhist temple with no legal capacity.

(b) Inasmuch as the inspection under paragraph (a) was admitted to the first Buddhist inspection type and became affiliated with it, if it did not follow the final constitution of the subordinate group to which it belongs, and if it was combined and decided to dismiss the inspection as the Buddhist inspection type, it does not change the end of the inspection, which is the foundation having no capacity and ability to receive the inspection, as it was the new and the Buddhist inspection was a foundation of different species, and this legal doctrine was repealed by the former Buddhist Property Management Act, a foundation that has registered the inspection as the Buddhist organization, and was not subject to the Traditional Temple Preservation Act newly implemented, it does not affect any legal relationship formed at king even if the inspection is not subject to the Korean Buddhist Temple Preservation Act.

Article 6 of the former Act on the Management of Buddhist Property (repealed by the Korean Traditional Temples Preservation Act, Law No. 3974 of Nov. 28, 1987); Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 31 and 68 of the Civil Act

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 89Meu2902 delivered on October 10, 1989 (Gong1989, 1663) (Gong1991, 1924 delivered on June 14, 1991). Supreme Court Decision 94Da24442 delivered on October 28, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 3118) (Gong192, 1992, 2374). (B) Supreme Court Decision 89Meu151 delivered on July 14, 1992

Appellee applicant 1, et al.

Appellant Respondent Law Firm Han-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na50029 delivered on July 13, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. All costs of appeal are assessed against the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below held that, even if the inspection of the non-party 1, who was the end of the inspection of the inspection of the non-party 1, was a non-party 1 who was an applicant for the non-party 1's right to the inspection of the non-party 1's final inspection of the non-party 1's new inspection of the non-party 1's new inspection of the non-party 1's old inspection of the non-party 1's old inspection of the non-party 2's old inspection of the non-party 1's old inspection of the non-party 1's old inspection of the non-party 1's new inspection of the non-party 1's old inspection of the non-party 1's new inspection of the non-party 1's old inspection of the non-party 1's old inspection of the non-party 1's old inspection of the non-party 1's new inspection of the non-party 1's old inspection of the non-party 1's new inspection of the non-party 1's new inspection of the non-party 1's new inspection of the non-party 1's new inspection.

If the court below reviewed the evidence relations as stated by the court below and the contents of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes by comparing them with the records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

In the theory of theory, when a person who started or built a temple registers the temple in the final order, the temple's work shall be recognized in the registration final order and appointed as widely known by the owner of the temple or by the believers who contributed to the temple, and the replacement of the chief minister shall continue to lead to the legal construction of the temple. If the chief minister recommended by him against the custom as above, if the chief inspector was appointed as a person in the final order contrary to the custom as mentioned above, the right to remain open to the third class by the resolution of the owner of the building and contributed to the construction has been suspended. In the event that the chief inspector was dismissed due to such circumstance, the court below argued that the property of the temple should be restored to the original state before the registration, but the fact that there exists such custom is no legitimate ground for appeal, and it is difficult to recognize that there is a custom of lawsuit as argued in the theory of lawsuit even after examining the record, there is no reason to do so.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)