[1] In a case where a temple, which was managed and operated as a private temple, was registered as a temple belonging to the specific temple and was appointed as a chief inspector from the specific temple, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the inspection site under the specific temple’s name, whether it shall be deemed as an independent inspection with the substance of an unincorporated association belonging to the specific temple or an unincorporated association or foundation, other than a juristic person (affirmative with qualification)

[2] In a case where an independent temple, which has the substance of an unincorporated association or foundation that is not a Buddhist association or foundation belonging to a clan, has not been registered as a traditional temple under the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act or as a religious organization under Article 41-2 (1) 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, whether the status as a Buddhist temple, which is an independent Buddhist organization, ceases to exist (negative)

[1] Where a temple, which was managed and operated as a private temple, was registered as a temple belonging to the specific temple and was appointed as a chief inspector from the specific temple, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the temple under the name of the specific temple with regard to the temple site, the temple shall be deemed as an independent temple with the substance of an association or foundation not belonging to the specific temple or a juristic person, unless there are special circumstances, such as that it would belong to the specific temple only on the pretext, and it was registered as a result of the inspection under the former Buddhist Temple Property Management Act (repealed by the Traditional Temple Preservation Act, Law No. 3974 of November 28, 1987).

[2] An independent temple equipped with the substance as an unincorporated association or foundation, which is not a Buddhist association or foundation belonging to a religious group, shall not lose its status as a Buddhist temple, an independent Buddhist temple, which was an independent Buddhist temple that occurred at king, even if it was not registered as a traditional temple under the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act (repealed by the Traditional Temple Preservation Act, Act No. 3974 of Nov. 28, 1987) and newly enacted, or as a religious organization under Article 41-2 (1) 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act.

[1] Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 6 and 9 of the former Buddhist Property Management Act (repealed by the Traditional Temple Preservation Act, Law No. 3974 of November 28, 1987) / [2] Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 6 and 9 of the former Buddhist Temple Property Management Act (repealed by the Traditional Temple Preservation Act, Law No. 3974 of November 28, 1987), Article 41-2 (1) 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da41508 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3514) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da2442 delivered on October 28, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 318), Supreme Court Decision 93Da435 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 467), Supreme Court Decision 93Da6045 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2766)

White Cancer (Attorney Jeon Chang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 96Na4460 delivered on December 19, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The summary of the judgment below is as follows.

A. The court below acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence adopted.

On August 26, 1968, Nonparty 1: (a) of this case, which was part of the information about 124 woodlands that Nonparty 2 was fired from the Crossing-gun; (b) purchased a specific 3 fluoral area of forest land; and (c) managed and operated the fluoral and the fluoral temple building that was set up on the ground as an individual inspection; and (d) on January 10, 1969, Nonparty 1 registered the said inspection as the fluoral group in the same name as the fluoral group under the former Buddhist Property Management Act, which was in force on the same day; (b) even after the registration of the fluoral group, it did not interfere with the operation of the fluoral and the fluoral building as an individual inspection from the fluoral and the fluoralian group.

The above non-party 1 divided the above purchase portion on August 2, 1971, and completed the registration of ownership transfer from the above non-party 2 under the name of Chuncheon District Court No. 3425 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Forest Ownership on the same day.

After the death of the above non-party 1, the non-party 3, who was on the upper son, has been in charge of it.

On June 15, 1975, Defendant 1 purchased the above ( Address 1 omitted) forest and its ground inspection building from Nonparty 3, together with the right to operate the temple, and also managed and operated it as an individual temple. On August 12, 1981, Defendant 1 removed the existing temple building after obtaining a construction permit from the same defendant under the same defendant's name, and newly constructed the real estate of this case on February 25, 1982, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the same defendant's name on November 28, 1984 with respect to the above ( Address 1 omitted) forest, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the same name of the defendant on August 26, 191 under the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Real Estate Ownership. The above ( Address 2 omitted) forest was divided into the real estate of this case and the ownership transfer was completed on February 26, 1992.

After that, on November 17, 1992, Defendant 1 notified Defendant 1 that he would withdraw from the Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-sung, and on April 4, 1994, the Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-sung was dismissed from his office as well as appointed Nonparty 4 as a new chief.

B. The lower court determined as follows on the premise of the foregoing facts.

The above non-party 1 purchased the forest land before the above division, which is the land of the plaintiff's temple, on his own without any support from the above Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-gun or the above monthly inspection. The building of the temple on the ground was managed and operated as an individual inspection without any interference from the above Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-gun or the above monthly inspection. The plaintiff temple registered the temple as an Buddhist organization under the above Buddhist Property Management Act, but did not register the above forest land or the above ground building as the basic property of the plaintiff's temple, even if the forest land before the above division was registered in the name of the plaintiff's temple, it cannot be deemed as the property of the plaintiff's inspection as the Buddhist organization even if the forest land before the above division was registered in the name of the plaintiff temple, and still, it remains owned by the above non-party 1 or defendant 1, who still managed and operated the plaintiff's temple, and the building of the temple on the ground of the above case was removed from the building permission of the above defendant's own property under the above defendant's name, not by the above third party.

Therefore, the plaintiff temple is an individual temple built, managed, and operated by an individual, and is merely a facility for Buddhist purposes owned by the individual, and is registered as a horse of the Korean Buddhist temple. It cannot be deemed that the plaintiff temple exists as an independent temple belonging to the above Buddhist temple solely on the ground that the plaintiff temple was registered as a horse of the Korean Buddhist Buddhist temple. Even if it was registered as an Buddhist church under the above Buddhist Property Management Act, it is difficult to view that it is an Buddhist association under Article 2 of the Non-Korean Buddhist Property Management Act, which is an independent right-holder, or an independent temple with the substance as a non-corporate group or foundation, because it is not a basic property even if registered as an Buddhist organization under the above Buddhist Property Management Act, it is difficult to view

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below.

A. According to the facts duly established by the court below and records, the above non-party 1 was 4. The above non-party 1 was 5. The non-party 1 was 4. The non-party 9. The non-party 1 was 5. The non-party 4. The non-party 1 was 9. The non-party 4. The non-party 1 was 9. The non-party 4. The non-party 9. The non-party 1 was 9. The non-party 4. The non-party 4. The non-party 1 was 9. The non-party 4. The non-party 4. The non-party 1 was 9. The non-party 4 and the non-party 1 was 9. The non-party 4. The non-party 1 was registered as the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9. The plaintiff 1's non-party 16.

B. The court below determined that the plaintiff temple could not own the basic property, but the above non-party 1 registered the plaintiff temple as the end-time company belonging to the plaintiff temple and registered the Buddhist association with the competent authority as the non-party 1 belonging to the plaintiff temple as the foundation of the plaintiff temple at the time of the plaintiff temple's non-party 1's non-party 1's registration as the foundation of the Buddhist association. The above building was left before the above non-party 1's completion of it, and it should be deemed that the above building was the basic property of the plaintiff temple because the plaintiff temple was the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party corporation or foundation, not an independent Buddhist organization or a juristic person. The above forest and land should also be deemed as the basic property by registering it in the name of the plaintiff temple, and even if the plaintiff temple did not register these property as the basic property of the Buddhist group under its jurisdiction, it shall not be deemed that the above property is not the ownership of the plaintiff temple.

C. In addition, the court below held that the above non-party 1 or the defendant 1 transferred the plaintiff temple to the non-party 1 as an individual inspector without any interference from the part of the plaintiff temple, and that the above defendant 1 purchased the plaintiff temple building and its site from the above non-party 3 along with the right to operate the plaintiff temple, and the plaintiff temple was chief of the plaintiff temple. However, even according to the records, there is no evidence to conclude that the above non-party 1 et al. operated the plaintiff temple as an individual inspector even after the plaintiff's non-party 1 et al. was registered as the ordinary inspector of the Korean Buddhist Cho Jong-chul, and instead, the above non-party 1 and the defendant 1 were notified of the expenses for the non-party 1 as the general inspector of the Korean Buddhist Cho Jong-chul and the defendant 1 did not appear to be the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's right to manage the plaintiff's temple and the plaintiff 1's non-party 1's property.

D. Therefore, although the plaintiff temple shall be deemed as a temple belonging to the Buddhist Buddhist association or the Korea Buddhist Cho Jae-sung, an entity which is an entity of the foundation, which is an independent Buddhist association or foundation that holds the basic property, and has the capacity to be a party in a lawsuit, it shall not be deemed that the court below erred by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the capacity of party in a lawsuit of the temple, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The argument pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)