The case holding that it shall be deemed that the chief executive officer purchases the necessary bond buildings on the land of the temple for use in the inspection or purchase for the inspection as the chief executive officer of the inspection.

The case holding that it shall be deemed that the chief executive officer purchases the necessary bond buildings on the land of the temple for use in the inspection or purchased for the inspection as the chief executive officer of the inspection rather than for the building owned by the individual.

Article 5 of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act, Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Synasian;

Suwon District Court Decision 90Na3918 delivered on December 11, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the witness 2 of the court of first instance owned the witness of the court of first instance without registration in around 1971 and the witness 1,2 of the court of first instance and witness 2 of the court of first instance as follows: (a) in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, the court below rejected the plaintiff's request for the testimony of the court of first instance to the non-party 2 to the non-party 1, the witness of the court of first instance to the non-party 1, and the witness 1, and the witness 26-1 of the court of first instance to the non-party 2 of the court of first instance to the non-party 1, 26-1, 183, 183, 1, 87, and 387, which are indicated in the annexed drawing(A) of the court below's judgment among the non-party 1, the non-party 1 and the witness of this case to the non-party 2.

2. According to the attached drawings and evidence Nos. 4 (Appraisaldo) of the judgment below, most of the above parts of the above (A) where the building in this case is located are located above the above 307 to 387, and the preceding part of this 307 is deemed to be owned by the defendant temple (a certified copy of the register), patha company, or patha bonds, and the house in which all the winners in the original section of the building in this case are residing.

3. Section 3 means the place where the passengers are on board with a common Buddhist mind, carrying out a legal ceremony, and expressing the law of the Buddhist, and the place where it is necessary to see the Buddhistism, which is an essential facility, such as a imprisony or legal holiday, and a bond in which the winners live. Therefore, the original purpose of the bond is the premise that it is provided for the use of the inspection in question, and it is ordinarily difficult for a third party to own it separately from the inspection in question or to use it exclusively by a third party who is not the inspection in question.

In addition, the well-known term of office is prepared, and it may be removed or transferred according to the case as a grhetor who manages and supervises the grhetor, so it does not fit for the reason that the well-known in this situation acquires and owns facilities or buildings necessary for the Section as an individual.

4. However, according to the testimony of witness 1 and witness 2 of the first instance court, at the time when the witness 1 of the first instance court purchased the building of this case from witness 2 of the first instance court, the witness 1 of the first instance court at the time the above witness 1 purchased the building of this case from witness 2 of the first instance court. Eul evidence 2 is a testimony prepared by the non-party 1 that "the witness 1 of the first instance court purchased the building of this case (which seems to refer to the defendant inspection) in Section 1 of the first instance court, and it is 700,000 won and takes over all of the duties and property rights with the intention of giving 70,000 won, and the testimony of the first instance court witness 3 is the same purport, and it is difficult for the witness witness to purchase the building of this case from the above witness 2 of the first instance court to purchase the building of this case from the defendant inspection of this case, or it is difficult for the defendant inspection to use it as a sale contract of the building of this case for the first instance court."

5. If so, if the authenticity of the evidence No. 2 is recognized, the court below rejected the testimony of No. 2 or No. 3 of the first instance court witness without examining or explaining other special circumstances, and the fact-finding of the above fact-finding by taking the testimony of No. 1 and No. 2 of the first instance court witness No. 1 and the first instance court witness No. 2 shall be deemed to be incomplete and contrary to the rules of evidence, and the arguments pointing this out are with merit.

6. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)