The validity of registration of transfer of ownership made on the ground of a successful bid in the procedure for compulsory auction of any temple property held without permission from the competent agency (negative)

If a compulsory auction is conducted on the property of a temple, it is required to obtain permission from the head of the cultural bulletin office who is the competent agency, so the ownership transfer registration which has been made on the ground of a successful bid by the procedure for compulsory auction conducted without such permission is an invalidation registration which lacks legitimate cause.

Article 11 of the Buddhist Property Management Act

Supreme Court Order 64Ma156 Dated December 16, 1966

Attorney Lee Sung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and 31 others

Daegu High Court Decision 78Na535 delivered on July 25, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal).

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1 was owned by the plaintiff, who is the head office of the Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-gu, Section 14 of the original year, and among these real estate at the original time, the plaintiff obtained permission for disposal from the literature delivery Minister at the time of July 16, 1963 for some real estate at the original time without permission from the head office of the cultural bulletin office which is the competent agency, but the literature delivery Minister did not cancel the permission for disposal of the above real estate as of March 4, 1966 without permission for disposal by the head office of the cultural bulletin office of the Busan District Court at the request of the non-party 6.729 on August 25, 196, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the presumption of sale of the real estate which belongs to the competent agency or the registration for disposal of the real estate under the title of the inspection committee, and did not obtain the permission for disposal of the above real estate under the law for compulsory auction.

As to the ground of appeal No. 3

In light of the purport or record that it is unlawful for Defendant 2 to purchase the above real estate from the Plaintiff and register the ownership of 52 square meters in Busan City ( Address 1 omitted) 54 square meters in its original real estate from the Plaintiff and then, Defendant 12 purchased 52 square meters in its own name from the Plaintiff, and thus, the registration in the above Defendants’ name is in conformity with the substantive relations. In light of the purport or record that it is unlawful for the Defendants to refuse the above Defendants’ assertion or to accept the above Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants purchased the above real estate from the Plaintiff and reported the disposal to the competent authorities in 2,3 double, and 3 double, it can be confirmed that the Defendants asserted that the revocation order of disposal permission was unjust. However, it cannot be found that the Defendants purchased the above real estate and fulfilled their duties as the purchaser, and thus, it cannot be asserted that the registration in the above Defendants’ name is in accord with the substantive relations. Thus, the lower court did not err in discussing the judgment on the ground that it did not constitute an attack.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)