Whether a purchaser of the answer, which is the property of a temple without permission of the competent Minister, is the possession thereof.

Unless there are special circumstances that the purchaser of the answer, who is the inspection property, knew or could have known the lack of permission from the competent Minister with regard to the sale of the land, his possession shall be regarded as the possession independently.

Article 11(1)2 of the Buddhist Property Management Act, Article 245 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da2111 Decided December 24, 1968, 72Da88 Decided March 31, 1972, Decision 72Da1856 Decided December 12, 1972

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Electric light yarn;

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 76Na1021 delivered on February 8, 1978

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

We examine the grounds for appeal by the defendant's attorney.

However, examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the record, it is difficult to conclude that the above-mentioned claim was originally owned by the defendant, and that the non-party 1, who was known to the plaintiff's inspection, sold it to the non-party 2 around May 194, and that the plaintiff continued to cultivate it until May 17, 1976, as stated in its reasoning, it cannot be viewed that there was no evidence that the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party 2 purchased it before the sale and purchase without evidence, and that there was no specific circumstance that the non-party 1 had no specific authority to purchase and sell the real estate after the lapse of 20 years from December 10, 1954, or that there was no specific circumstance that the non-party 2 had no authority to purchase and sell the real estate after the lapse of the prescription period or the expiration of the prescription period, as stated in the judgment of the court below, it cannot be concluded that there was no specific circumstance that the non-party 1 had no authority to purchase and sell it under the law.

Therefore, all arguments are without merit, and the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)