Whether there is a representative authority of the chief inspector appointed by the believers in the case of a registered temple;

Where there is a separate registered well-known knowledge even though the believers of temples are appointed, only the registered well-known person shall have the power to represent the temple.

Article 9 of the Buddhist Property Management Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Ma1301 delivered on July 30, 1969 (Kakadd 695; Supreme Court Decision 17 ② ② citizen 415 delivered on July 17, 196; Decision 76Da832 delivered on June 22, 1976 (No. 9(4)1575 of the Act on the Management of Non-Formal Property and No. 542-75 of the Court Gazette)

Shin Young-chul

Do Governor of Gyeonggi-do;

The litigation of this case shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by Nonparty 1.

The administrative disposition that the defendant rejected an application for alteration of the plaintiff's temple registration on September 5, 1974 shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

The plaintiff temple is a temple with the name of "sicker" which was established in 163, and the new temple maintained the temple on May 31, 1962. On May 31, 1962, the non-party 2, who was known at the time due to the promulgation of the Non-School Property Management Act, registered the temple as the class of the plaintiff's temple and registered its name as "Jaker" without his consent. On July 16, 1972, the new assembly notified the non-party 1 to the class of the ancestor on March 9, 1973 after the completion of the registration of entry into the class of the plaintiff's temple on March 10, 163, the representative of the new temple on August 10, 197, and the plaintiff's application for alteration of the name of the temple was rejected on August 22, 1974, and the plaintiff's application for alteration of the name of the plaintiff's class of the inspection was rejected on August 1, 1974.

Therefore, examining whether Nonparty 1 is a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff’s temple, the person registered with the competent management authority as the chief of the Plaintiff’s temple from the time the instant case was brought to the time of the closing of argument to the time of the closing of argument, has no dispute between the parties as to the facts of Nonparty 3, so even if Nonparty 1 was elected as chief of the competent management authority, barring any special circumstance, only Nonparty 3, registered as chief of the competent management authority, is entitled to represent the Plaintiff’s temple, and Nonparty 1 has no representative authority.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case brought by the non-party 1, who is not entitled to represent the plaintiff's temple, is unlawful, and thus, it shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 99, 98 (2), and 60 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judge Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)