Cases of denying the capacity of a party to an unregistered inspection

In accordance with Article 6 of the Buddhist Property Management Act, temples not registered as Buddhist organizations in the delivery of literature can not be deemed as Buddhist organizations under the Buddhist Property Management Act, so there is no ability to do so.

Article 6 of the Private School Property Management Act, Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Property Management Act

Macsium;

D. D. S. S. S. T. S. T. S. T. S. S.

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Central Criminal Court (73Gahap809) in the first instance trial.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court below is revoked. The defendant shall revoke the plaintiff's judgment. On July 29, 1971, the registration of the preservation of ownership as the receipt of 61530 registration office of the Seoul Civil District Court, the registration of the registration of the cancellation of registration of the correction as the registration of the registration of the registration of the correction as the registration office No. 61530 on August 4, 1972, and the registration of the cancellation of the registration of the correction as the registration of the registration of the registration of the correction as the registration office No. 30715 on August 4, 1972, as the registration of the registration of the correction registration of the same registry office as the registration office No. 30715 on August 4, 1972.

The judgment that all the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials.

The plaintiff is the cause of the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff is a temple created by a pilot's company in the new Jindong era. Around June 5, 1972, the plaintiff constructed some of the temple buildings as stated in the purport of the claim while he was employed by the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2, who was the two after his death, led to the plaintiff's subsequent notification, and newly constructed, repaired, and managed a part of the building as stated in the purport of the claim. The plaintiff registered the Korean Buddhist Cho Jong-tae on November 19, 1970 as its principal form, and the non-party 3 was appointed as the chief of the plaintiff's well-known body on June 5, 1972. Thus, the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff shall file the claim of this case on the basis of the ownership of the building as stated in the purport of the claim.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 6 of the Buddhist Property Management Act (Act No. 1087, May 31, 1962), which was enacted for the purpose of contributing to the improvement of social culture by prescribing matters necessary for the management and operation of the property and facilities of the Buddhist organization and the Buddhist organization's ability as to the plaintiff's party ability, the Buddhist organization should be registered with the Minister for Delivery of literature, and even with respect to all materials submitted by the plaintiff, the registration of the Buddhist type was made to the Minister for Delivery of literature, and the registration made by the plaintiff on the same type can not be recognized, but it cannot be recognized that the plaintiff was registered with the Minister for Delivery of literature. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as a Buddhist organization under the Buddhist Property Management Act, and therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection is unlawful as it is filed by a person who has no capacity to be a party, and thus, it shall be dismissed. The judgment of the court below to this effect is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and is so decided

Judges Lee Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)