[1] In a case where the chief knowledge of the inspection disposes of the inspection property without internal procedures such as resolution or approval of the inspection team to which he belongs (effective)

[2] Whether the traditional temple should have close close relations with the relevant traditional temple in order to become a land for a temple under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act (affirmative), and the meaning of the land for cultivation under Article 3 (1) subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act

[1] Since the right to manage and dispose of the property of a temple is entrusted to the chief inspector representing the temple, even if the chief inspector of the temple did not undergo internal procedures, such as a resolution or approval from the subordinate team, the disposal act is valid.

[2] In order to become a land within a temple as stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act, the land must have close close relations with the relevant traditional temple, and therefore, it means the land or its surrounding land within the boundary of the traditional temple under Article 3 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act, which is necessary for the Buddhist rites of the relevant temple, the execution of Buddhist Buddhist worship, and the edification of believers and believers.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Preservation of Traditional Temples Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act, Article 3 (1) subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da11049 delivered on February 11, 1992 (Gong1991, 982) Supreme Court Decision 93Da60038 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2765)

Plaintiff (Attorney Noh Young-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant ○○○ Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Subdivision, Attorneys Cho Yong-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na34149 delivered on April 9, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Since the right to manage and dispose of the property of a temple is entrusted to the chief inspector representing the temple, even if the chief inspector of the temple did not go through internal procedures such as a resolution or approval by the subordinate division to which he belongs, the act of disposal is effective (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da11049 delivered on February 11, 1992, Supreme Court Decision 93Da6038 delivered on July 14, 1995).

The court below is justified in holding that the sales contract of this case cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that it violated the conditions of approval of the Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-sung, which was made thereafter, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 6 (1) 2 of the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 7 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Korean Traditional Temples Preservation Act provide that the chief of the Korean Traditional Temples shall obtain permission from the Minister of Culture and Sports when he/she intends to lease, transfer, or offer as security the real estate owned by a representative organization belonging to the Korean Traditional Temples within the boundaries of the Korean Traditional Temples Preservation Act. Meanwhile, Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Act defines the land belonging to the temple as land belonging to the temple for the Buddhist Buddhist Buddhist rites, the conduct of Buddhist Buddhist rites, and the edification of believers and believers, and Article 3 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Korean Traditional Temples Preservation Act provides that the cultivated land together with the garden, forest, and grassland shall be one of the land located within the boundary of the Korean Traditional Temples.

As such, Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act and Article 3 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act do not directly stipulate that the place of cultivation and the place where a traditional temple belongs within a temple and its boundary should have geographical and spatial relations. However, the prior meaning of the land within a certain area or zone is "land within a specific area or zone", and the term "traditional temple as prescribed by the Act" means a building constructed and built for Buddhist religion (including both inner and movable property and real estate) to commemorate believers, and is registered pursuant to Article 3 of the Act for the purpose of cultivating Buddhist temples (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act). The meaning of the above Act is defined as the meaning of a physical facility that is not an organization of traditional temples, and it is due to the fact that the purpose of the Act is to preserve traditional temples which are not an organization of traditional temples, and thus, it is necessary to interpret that land is closely related to the improvement of national culture within a specific area or a arable temple, regardless of whether it is necessary to be an area or a arable area within the boundary of a forest (Article 1 of the Act).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records in accordance with the above legal principles, it is just that the court below determined that the land of this case, which is a arable land located in Bupyeong-gu, Bupyeong-gu, Seoul, where the defendant temple is located, did not fall within the boundaries of the law, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. 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.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)