Cases where an individual inspection is deemed incapable of being a party;

After the non-party purchased an individual inspection, the registration title of the building and the site of the inspection shall be registered in his name or in the name of the inspection, and the ownership of the real estate was practically exercised, and the inspection was conducted, and the defendant et al. was registered as the inspection of the inspection of the non-party to the inspection, and the property of the inspection was not attributed to the aforementioned inspection of the inspection of the building and the property of the inspection of the inspection of the non-party to the above inspection of the inspection of the inspection of the building. If the inspection of the inspection of the building and the site was registered as the non-party to the Daegu Metropolitan City under the old Non-Performing Property Management Act, or if the inspection of the building of the inspection of the non-party, such as the building of the inspection of the non-party to the inspection of the inspection of the building and the building of the inspection of the inspection of the non-party to the above inspection of the inspection of the non-party to the above inspection of the inspection of the inspection of the non-party to the inspection of the inspection of the inspection of the inspection of the building of the non-party to the inspection.

Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5641 delivered on February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1094) 91Da9336 delivered on June 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1924) 91Ma581 delivered on January 23, 1992 (Gong192, 1262) 93Da56145 delivered on June 28, 1994

Attorney Cho Yong-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Defendant 1 and 4 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Daegu High Court Decision 92Na10082 delivered on October 7, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against Nonparty 3.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

Examining the evidence established by the court below based on the records, the fact-finding by the court below as to the point of origin of the lawsuit is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

As can be seen from the facts duly admitted by the court below and records, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 purchased a personal inspection of the same kind of inspection, and opened it as an official inspection, and the registration title of the real estate of this case, which is the building and site of the inspection, is in their own name or inspection according to their own intention or circumstances, and actually exercised the ownership of the real estate of this case, and conducted the inspection, and they did not register the ownership transfer registration of the above real estate to the defendant 5 or non-party 3, and they did not belong to the above inspection. The non-party 1 and non-party 2 did not belong to the founder of the inspection, and if they did not have regulations or organization concerning the operation of the organization and property of the inspection, and they did not participate in the operation of the inspection, the above official inspection is merely a simple establishment of the inspection, and they cannot be deemed as a foundation or an association without the ability of rights, and thus, the court below's judgment is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal reasoning.

However, if the above non-party has completed the registration as above for the purpose of resolving a dispute among them and jointly managing the temple as acknowledged by the court below, it cannot be deemed that the above public official was an incorporated foundation or association with no legal capacity. In addition, the circumstances of the theory of lawsuit, such as that the above public official was registered as a non-affiliated organization in the Daegu Metropolitan City and Daegu Metropolitan City under the former Non-Performing Property Management Act, or that there was a building, such as the fact that the public official was widely known in the temple, and the public official was executing the non-legal official by taking over the temple, shall not be deemed to have reached the conclusion of the court below in light of the above facts acknowledged by the court below.

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the non-party 3 who is represented by the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)