Unlike the intention of the researchers of the temple who were trying to serve as a bridge for the Buddhist temple belonging to the religious profession, whether a request for the surrender of the temple to the legal interest of the creator, who is the title holder of the registration, was made as a legal interestist belonging to the legal profession.

In a case where the temple itself forms an independent organization, it does not lose the identity of the paper to which he belongs, and therefore, it is difficult to seek the name of the above real estate solely on the ground that the author of the temple’s original intention was established by an agreement of the creator who contributed money in order to build a legal interest company even if it was the legal interest company belonging to the Korean Buddhist type, and it cannot be said that it was used without a title to use this real estate as the legal party and the land for the Buddhist type while using it as the land for the legal interest company, and thus, it cannot be said that it was used without a title to occupy it in order to carry out the Buddhist class such as the Buddhist class.

[Judgment of the court below]

Legal Institute:

Daegu High Court Decision 73Na528 delivered on July 10, 1974

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the building was purchased by several persons who used money to purchase the building in order to belong to the Korean Buddhist Cho Jong-sung by constructing the building in the future, and then registered the building in the name of the plaintiff and entrusted all rights such as management, disposal, etc. to the investors of the building in the money. The defendant, without the plaintiff's permission, registers the building in the name of the plaintiff, and the defendant, who belongs to the Korean Buddhist Cho Jong-sung, registers the building in the name of the defendant's property as the property of the defendant temple without the plaintiff's permission. The defendant is a legal interest in the legal entity of the Korean Buddhist Cho Jong-sung, which was not registered at the time of the building in this case, and therefore, even though the building was not registered at the time of the building in this case, the building in this case was purchased in order to purchase the building in this case or even if it was impossible for the defendant's trust to purchase the building in this case, and it was judged that the building was the property owned by the plaintiff and rejected the plaintiff's claim for title of the building in this case on the premise.

For the purpose of this Act:

1. Although the original judgment was reached around 1958, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, and the non-party 5 were discussed to build the temple of this case, and it was occupied and used for the non-party 1 as the law party and the temple site since they purchased money from the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 4 and the non-party 5 did not have the right to manage and dispose of the real estate of this case and the non-party 6's non-party's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party 6's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building's non-party building'.

2. If so, the defendant is established by an agreement between the plaintiff and the above non-party, etc. who contributed to the purchase price of this real estate in order to construct the defendant temple as above, and used this real estate as his legal party and site, and used it as his legal party and site, and it does not mean that it uses it without any title. Thus, the plaintiff cannot seek the name of this real estate for the plaintiff, only on the ground that the ownership on the registry belongs to the plaintiff.

3. Although the original judgment did not have any reasonable points like the argument, the above conclusion is just, and the final appeal is therefore dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Article 400 and Article 395 and Article 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the application of Article 95 and Article 89 of the same Act to the burden of litigation costs and the provision of Article 95 of the same Act to the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Hong Man-hee (Presiding Justice)