(a) The effect of termination of title trust, and the status of a person who acquired real estate from a trustee before transferring the title of registration;

(b) Where the disposition by the title trustee on the property under title trust becomes null and void;

(c) A case holding that there is room to regard the area of land adjacent to the main border area of the inspection as an inferior property for the purpose of the inspection or the existence of the inspection;

A. The effect of the termination of a title trust contract is merely a mere fact that the trustee acquired real estate from the trustee prior to the transfer of the registration name in the name of the truster in the future, the trustee shall acquire the ownership lawfully, unless there is any invalidation or grounds for revocation.

B. The reason why the former Buddhist Property Management Act and the Traditional Temple Preservation Act require the inspection to obtain permission from the competent authorities on the disposal of a certain temple property is to regulate the inspection for the purpose of contributing to the improvement of social culture as well as the original purpose of existence of the inspection. Therefore, in a case where the disposal of the relevant property as the actual inspection ownership is impossible for the accomplishment of the inspection purpose or it is likely to endanger the existence of the inspection itself, the disposal by the third party, the trustee, even if the relevant property is trusted in trust to a third party, shall be null and void.

(c) A case holding that there is room to regard the area of land adjacent to the main border area of the inspection as an inferior property for the purpose of the inspection or the existence of the inspection;

(a)Article 186 of the Civil Code. (b) Article 111.1.2 of the former Act on the Management of Buddhist Property, Article 6.1.2 of the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act, Article 6.5 of the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Meu416 delivered on August 24, 1982 (Gong1982, 880) (Gong1983, 1982), 81Da372 delivered on November 23, 1982 (Gong1983, 192), 90Da10858 delivered on January 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 847) B. Supreme Court Decision 81Da731, 732 delivered on December 22, 1981 (1982, 253) (19, 1987) 85Da2536 delivered on January 20, 197

Attorney Song-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant 1] and 13 others, Counsel for defendant 1-appellee

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 89Na6173 delivered on October 17, 1990

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding the real estate recorded in Defendant 1’s 8 List is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, and Defendant 12 is dismissed. The Plaintiff’s remaining appeal against Defendant 1 and the appeal against Defendant 13, and Defendant 14 are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against rejection and dismissal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1) On its own initiative, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, and Defendant 12 as to the lower judgment. However, there is no room for any further objection against the said Defendants, since it is obvious that the Plaintiff’s claim was accepted in the lower court, as to the said Defendants, it is obvious that all of the claims were accepted by the Plaintiff at the lower court. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s appeal is unlawful as it is without any interest in the appeal, and thus,

(2) We examine the Plaintiff’s remaining Defendants’ ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 as well.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that even if the plaintiff temple was found to have completed the ownership transfer registration under the name of defendant 1, 1968, it was based on the title trust, since it was not registered under the name of the plaintiff temple at the time when the purchaser was registered under the same name as the defendant at the time of April 11 of the same year. Since the above forest was divided into several parcels as stated in the judgment, and the above forest was completed on July 21, 1987 to April 19, 1989, each ownership transfer registration under the name of defendant 1, including the remaining Defendants and the non-party, which was completed on the real estate of this case, was made under the title trust. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the subsequent purchaser's ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party 1 was made under the subsequent purchaser's false title trust registration under the name of the plaintiff 1, the subsequent purchaser's title trust registration under the name of the plaintiff 1, the subsequent purchaser.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the title trust and the cancellation of the contract, the tiny exercise, the incomplete hearing, and the violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence. In addition, the plaintiff's assertion that the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant 1 is invalid, not through the title trust, and the trust registration itself is cancelled before the subsequent purchaser's ownership transfer registration is completed in the future. Thus, the subsequent purchaser's argument that the ownership transfer registration in the future is invalid cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as it is a new argument that the subsequent purchaser's ownership transfer registration in the fact-finding court is invalid, and even if the family title trust contract is terminated, the effect of the termination is not retroactive, and the effect of the termination is also effective in the future, and the person who acquired the real estate from the trustee before the title transfer in the name of the trust in the future is legally acquired unless there is a nullity or a ground for cancellation. It is without merit.

(3) We examine the second ground for appeal.

The former Buddhist Property Management Act and the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act provide that a temple shall obtain permission from the competent authorities with regard to the disposal of a specific temple property. The temple is an Buddhist organization for the purpose of the implementation of the law and the edification of the believers. The property owned by it is a movable property necessary for the realization of the purpose of the temple and the maintenance of life of the believers, such as buildings, land, etc., and for the Buddhist, pictures, stone, and other Buddhist rites and worships, and for the daily life of the Buddhist. On the other hand, it is also necessary to protect and maintain the temple's historical and historical materials at the time of such property in order to protect and maintain the temple's dignity and dignity, and thus, it shall be regulated for the purpose of contributing to the improvement of social culture as well as the original purpose of its existence, and therefore, if it is impossible for the temple to dispose of the property substantially as its ownership, it shall be deemed that the property is in danger to the third party's disposal of the temple's own property, and it shall be deemed null and void, 181.3.25

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the part on the original (a) and (f) part of the real estate in this case, which are part of the 5,8 real estate in the judgment of the court below, belongs to the part within the central border area of the plaintiff temple, such as forming the site of the inspection building, and thus the disposal act is null and void as it is likely to make the plaintiff temple unable to achieve the purpose of the inspection or endanger the existence of the inspection itself. However, the remaining real estate except the above part of the land is located within the major border area of the plaintiff temple, and it is difficult to view it to the extent that it is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the plaintiff inspection, etc.

According to the records, real estate in this case (not to be determined as to real estate 6,9 in the judgment of the court below which held that the plaintiff's claim was accepted in the original court) is not open room other than sacriffication as a forest surrounding the major landscape and facilities of the plaintiff's temple relatively far away, and (o) part of the five real estate is located on the Dong side of the plaintiff's temple, which is not only included in the basic landscape of the plaintiff's temple, but also the remaining part of the land except the above (o) part is relatively adjacent to the temple's main landscape. However, since the part of the eight real estate in this judgment is divided into the main landscape and the main landscape of the building, and (a) part of the eight real estate in this judgment is constructed within the basic landscape of the plaintiff's temple, and there is no need to judge that the remaining part of the land except the above (a) part of the land within the boundary of the plaintiff's temple's main purpose and (b) it is not possible to judge that the above part is invalid or invalid.

However, further, the records reveal that the access road to the plaintiff temple passed over at least 20 meters on the land of the forest (road address 2 omitted) and this is the only access road leading to the above temple's full surface, which is coming from the boundary area of the forest and fields (road address 2 omitted) and the (road address 3 omitted) forest and fields to the main party of the plaintiff temple, and the main road of the plaintiff temple's temple's main road and the main road of the above (road address 2 omitted) and the significant part of the three distance belongs to the above (road address 2 omitted) forest and the above (road address 2 omitted) forest. Both sides of the above access road belong to the above (road address 2 omitted) forest and it is difficult to build a separate road as it is difficult to do so. In light of the fact that the access road is isolated from the main road of the inspection from general public facilities, etc. for the purpose of maintaining the well-being and dignity of the inspection, the court below should have determined that the part of the above (road 2 omitted), which points out of the plaintiff inspection's main purpose or disposition disposition is not effective.

(4) Therefore, of the judgment below, the part against the plaintiff as to the real estate recorded in the 8th list of defendant 1's 8 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 is dismissed. The remaining appeal against the defendant 1 against the plaintiff 1 and the appeal against the defendant 13, and 14 are dismissed. The costs of the appeal against the rejection and dismissal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)