(a) Whether an individual inspection exists as an independent inspection belonging to the relevant species, in cases where the individual inspection is registered as an Buddhist organization in the protocol of the species of the dissolution, the rules of the species, the inspection ledger, etc., or in the central group thereof;

(b) Whether the inspection has the legal capacity or the legal capacity;

C. Whether permission under the Act on the Management of Buddhist Property is necessary to dispose of the inspection owned by an individual

A. The fact that a person who is an individual inspector was registered as an Buddhist organization at the central end of the protocol, the constitution of the religious species, the final rules, the inspection ledger, etc., or the central end of the inspection cannot be deemed to exist as an independent inspection that belongs to the protocol of the same kind.

(b) In a case where an inspection forms an independent organization, the inspection does not depend on the substance of the inspection because of the existence of an inspection or a disposition of registration of the temporary establishment under the Buddhist Property Management Act, and thus constitutes an independent organization, regardless of the existence of a disposition of the registration, the inspection shall have independent capacity as an unincorporated association or foundation as a legal entity and shall represent the inspection in question in accordance with the rules of the organization, regardless of the existence of a disposition of the registration.

C. If the remaining inspection remains as an individual inspection, but it did not exist as an independent inspection, and if the property is not reverted to the property as the object of the liquidation, even though it did not constitute the facilities for the object of the liquidation, it cannot be deemed as the property owned by the Buddhist organization under the Buddhist Property Management Act. Therefore, the legal principles on the disposal of the property by the Buddhist organization cannot be applied to the disposal of the property by the owner.

(a) Article 6 of the Buddhist Property Management Act (repealed by May 28, 198); Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 6 and 9(c) of the Buddhist Property Management Act;

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu42 Decided February 23, 1982

[Defendant-Appellee] The Head of Korea National University Choyang-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellee-appellant

New Development Co., Ltd. and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na4796 delivered on June 14, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on evidence, found the above non-party 1 as a personal temple originally created by the deceased non-party 1 around September 1889, which belongs to the deceased non-party 2 at the time when he succeeded to it for the convenience of 1926 and then has been appointed as the chief of the authority, but actually managed and operated the above non-party 2 as an individual temple. From around December 1959, the above non-party 2 was appointed as the chief of the authority, and the non-party 3 was appointed as the chief of the authority after the non-party 1 was registered as the non-party 2's chief of the office. The non-party 2 was not registered as the non-party 3's chief of the office of inspection and the non-party 1's chief of the office of inspection, and was registered as the non-party 2's chief of the office of inspection after being registered as the non-party 1's chief of the office of inspection, and the non-party 2's chief of the inspection.

The facts are as follows: (a) Ansanamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamam its original individual inspection before it is registered as the pro-oamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamamomy's as it belongs to the pre-oamamamamamomy of each time; (b) the above non-party 2 succeeded to the pre-oamamamamamamamamamamamamy, its ownership or other disposal rights of the pre-oamamamamamomy's land, and it is not registered as the pre-oamamamamamamy of the pre-oamamamamamamamamamomy's property, regardless of its title belonging to the above pre-apamamamamamamamamy's property or the pre-apamamamamamamamam.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified in holding that, until it is registered as the Lee Jong-sung's Choyang-sung's non-party 2's private facilities for the non-party 2, and that it is not an independent right holder, and that it does not exist as an independent temple belonging to the above Choyang-sung's private facilities for the non-party 2, and that it does not constitute an independent temple belonging to the above Choyang-sung. In so doing, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the inspection as an association or foundation which has no ability to

2. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 1 and 2 by the Plaintiff’s representative

In a case where a temple forms an independent organization, it does not depend on the substance of an inspection under the Buddhist Property Management Act, and thus constitutes an independent organization, regardless of the existence of a disposition of registration, it shall have independent legal capacity as an association or foundation without legal capacity and may represent the inspection in question (see Supreme Court Decision 81Nu42, Feb. 23, 1982). However, according to the court's lawful determination of the court below, it is difficult for the above non-party 3, who was appointed as the non-party 1, who was appointed as the non-party 1, who was appointed as the non-party 1, as the non-party 1, who was appointed as the non-party 1, as the non-party 1, who was appointed as the non-party 1, as the non-party 1, who was appointed as the non-party 3, who was appointed as the non-party 1, as the non-party 1, who was appointed as the non-party 1, as the non-party 1, as the non-party 2, who was dismissed.

Therefore, it is not appropriate for the court below to determine whether a temple exists as an independent temple which is an unincorporated association in its reasoning of judgment on the premise that the temple and the chief of the building legally applies for registration to the competent agency and has received it. However, since the court below does not recognize the plaintiff's ability to be the party after the examination of whether the plaintiff has the substance as an independent temple among the reasons for the judgment, the judgment of the court below is legitimate in its conclusion, and the argument is nothing more than that of the judgment of the court below on the premise that it is different from the final judgment of the court below, which is separate from that of the defendant temple which had existed before the defendant's inspection.

In addition, the Supreme Court precedents are not appropriate in that they relate to the validity of appointment of a chief inspector of a temple who has an independent entity without being registered, or the ability of the relevant party. The argument is groundless in this case.

3. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 3 and 3, 4, and 5 of the Plaintiff’s representative

The court below's decision is just in holding that the above non-party 2's donation to the non-party 2 before the registration as the non-party 2's non-party 2's private possession of the deceased non-party 2 and did not exist as an independent inspection, and since the property was not owned by the above non-party 2, it cannot be deemed as the property owned by the non-party organization under the Non-party 2 Management of the Non-party Property Act even though the property was formed for the purpose of the non-party 2, and if the above property was not owned by the non-party organization, there is no room to apply the legal principles on the disposition of the non-party 2's property as to the disposition of the non-party 2's property. Thus, the court below's decision that the above non-party 2's donation to the non-party 2's non-party 2 was not subject to permission under the Non-party 2's Non-party 2's Non-party 2's property management Act, and it did not affect the above non-party 2's property registration.

The precedents are different from this case, since it concerns the validity of disposal of property in a case where a temple, who did not register but has independent substance, disposes of the property without permission of the competent agency.

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)