Effect of the inspection property disposal act to the extent that it is impossible to conduct social activities for its own proper purpose;

If the inspection property disposition is to the extent that the purpose of the inspection is away or the existence of the inspection is denied and the inspection is at risk, it would be invalid even if the permission of the Minister concerned is granted.

Article 19(1) of the Gu Residents Act, Article 43 of the Gu Residents Act (Article 34 of the Civil Act), Article 2 of the Gu Inspection Decree, Article 2 of the Non-School Property Management Act

Hanmun Institute (Attorney Kim Tae-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Free yarn;

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na1219 delivered on October 31, 1963

the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Defendant’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the ground of appeal No. 7

The summary of this claim is that the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant on March 15, 1952 for the registration of ownership transfer by gift from March 15, 1952 on the same part as the partial registration of the portion indicated in the drawings (A) attached to the original judgment among the forest land of 342-7 forest land in the 342-g forest land in the 342-g forest land (200/342,7) in the 342-g forest land in the 342-g forest land in the 342-g forest land in the 342-g forest land in the 3452-g forest in the 342-g forest in the 1952. However, the court below's approval of the above amendment of the claim is unjust.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff's preliminary amendment of the claim, such as the plaintiff's theory, was made in the final argument of the court below, and the amendment of the claim was not made in writing, and the defendant was not served on the defendant. However, it is obvious that the defendant merely asserted that the plaintiff's preliminary assertion is groundless, and the right of reply was not exercised without delay. Thus, the defects of the plaintiff's or the court's above procedural law violation are already removed in relation with the defendant, so it is not reasonable to discuss.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 1

The purpose of this is to interpret the inspection of the old Civil Code to have the character of a juristic person as the purport of the old inspection order and the provision of Article 19 of the old Civil Code, and the inspection of the temple shall have the legal capacity and capacity to act within the scope of the purpose of the inspection pursuant to the provisions of Article 43 of the Gu Resident Law. Therefore, it shall not be transferred the inspection property to any third party for any purpose other than the maintenance and operation of the inspection, and it shall be null and void even if there is the permission of the Minister for Delivery in Home Affairs. Within the 342th 7th m of this case, there are annexed buildings, including the main building of the inspection of the defendant temple, and buildings, and there are large and large writers, and the transfer of the forest land that is most adjacent to the defendant's property shall not be null and void as it denies the existence itself.

Therefore, the inspection of the Buddhist temple is a Buddhist organization with the purpose of enforcing the law of the Buddhist temple and promoting the edification of the believers. It is interpreted that the temple is composed of all or part of the temple's property necessary for realizing the purpose of the inspection and preserving the dignity of the inspection of the land in order to carry out the building for the Buddhist land and its structure or the ceremony of the Buddhist temple in order to carry out the ceremony or the ceremony of the Buddhist temple. Therefore, the previous inspection of the Buddhist temple and the current Buddhist Property Management Act strictly regulates the disposition of the property in order to protect and maintain the temple's property for the purpose of contributing to the improvement of social culture, and if the inspection of the property is not in accordance with the certain procedure, the disposal of the property can be deemed null and void as a matter of course, and even in the previous precedents of the previous church, the transfer of the temple property without the permission of the inspection officer cannot be a creditor, and the execution of the inspection property can not be seen as an unlawful execution of the inspection as a matter of law being executed as a result of the execution of the inspection property by the creditor.

However, as seen above, in case where a temple disposes of part of its property in accordance with the academic procedures on the public works such as religious and charitable charity that are not contrary to its purpose even though it is an organization directly aimed at the execution of the law of the Buddhist temple and the edification and fostering of the believers, such a project shall not be deemed null and void as it does not fall under the scope of the inspection, even if it is not the original purpose of the temple, but even if it does not fall under the purpose of the inspection. However, even if it is not contrary to the purpose of the inspection or for the business which is contrary to the purpose of the inspection, it shall not be deemed null and void as a matter of course, even if the disposal of the property is impossible to achieve the inspection purpose, or may endanger the existence of the inspection itself, or the disposal of the property to the extent that the existence of the inspection is denied, as a matter of course, even if the disposal was conducted

Since the legislative purport of the old temple Order or the current Management of Buddhist Property Act requires the permission of the competent Minister for the disposal of a certain property is the above, if the inspection is defective in contributing to the improvement of social culture, the permission of the competent Minister for the inspection is deviating from the purpose of the inspection, or if it is about the disposition that results in the denial of the existence of the inspection, it shall not be deemed null and void in light of the legislative purpose of recognizing the permission of the competent Minister.

In order for a profit-making corporation to dispose of important property, it shall be stipulated that a special resolution should be required for the establishment of a legal entity, and a natural person is not for the existence of the legal entity and at the same time the existence of the legal entity itself is not for its original purpose, but for all the legal entity or any other organization, but only for its original purpose, and the disposal of temple property to the extent that it is impossible to conduct social activities only for its original purpose is within the scope of its original purpose, so it cannot be the act that may ultimately endanger the existence of the inspection itself as a objective organization, or result in the denial of its existence itself, and it shall be interpreted that such disposal is null and void even if there is a permission from the competent Minister. In this case, it is clear that the court below, based on the original judgment, recognized that the act of the defendant's new permission of the defendant's foundation was in violation of the law of the defendant's new guarantee of the defendant's own forest and field since it was against the law of the defendant's new guarantee of the defendant's own forest and field since it was established on March 18, 19.

However, the court below decided the validity of the disposition of forest and field as to whether or not there is any cultural property or valuable height as argued by the defendant in the forest and field, and therefore, the disposition of forest and field to the extent that the social activity for the proper purpose of the inspection of the defendant and its existence value are affected thereby endanger the existence of the defendant's temple or that the existence of the defendant's existence is denied. Thus, the court below decided the invalidity of the disposition of forest and field as to the disposition of this case, although the court below decided the validity of the disposition of this case, the fact that the permission of the Minister for Delivery of Forest and field was granted to the defendant and that the act of contribution in this case cannot be deemed to be in violation of the defendant's own purpose and to be in violation of the public order and good customs, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the purport of the law and purpose of the inspection of the defendant's request, and the decision of the other grounds for appeal should be omitted, and the judgment of the court below should be reversed unfairly and it is consistent with all Justices participating in the judgment.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu