(a) Whether the inspection is a requirement for the registration as a temple because it becomes the subject of the ability to exercise the right (negative); however, if the inspection has not been registered but has the substance as the subject of the ability to exercise the right, and the widely known Gap purchased the forest land as the representative of the inspection and completed the registration of transfer under title trust with the individual Gap, but completed the registration of transfer under the name of the inspection after the completion of the prescriptive acquisition by Eul, the possessor of the land B may claim for the acquisition by prescription against the inspection

A. The registration as a temple is not necessarily required because the temple becomes the subject of the ability to exercise its rights.

(b) The case holding that in a case where Gap had not registered the temple at the time of purchase of the disputed forest land, but had the substance as a temple, which is the subject of legal capacity, and the widely known person Gap purchased the forest land as the representative of the temple and completed the registration of transfer under title trust with Gap, but completed the registration of transfer under the name of the temple after the completion of the prescriptive prescription of Eul, the possessor of Eul's possession may claim the acquisition by prescription against the said temple.

a.B.Article 31(a) of the Civil Code. Article 3 of the Preservation of Traditional Temples Act. Article 245 of the Civil Code

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu42 delivered on February 23, 1982 (Gong1982, 388)

Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Busan District Court Decision 91Na4802,91Na4819 delivered on January 31, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 purchased the ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff temple on April 4, 1979 on the ground that the non-party 1 purchased the ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff temple on December 31, 1963 after the lapse of 1943 to 20 years, and accepted the defendants' claim for the prescriptive acquisition. Even if the defendant acquired the above land by prescription, it is apparent that the above land had been registered in the name of the plaintiff's name on April 4, 1979, and it cannot be asserted that the above prescriptive acquisition cannot be asserted against the plaintiff who completed the ownership transfer registration after the prescriptive acquisition. The court below found that the non-party 2 purchased the ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff temple on the ground of the non-party 1 on April 4, 1979 on the ground that it was not in conformity with the plaintiff temple's name on the ground that it should be purchased from the plaintiff temple's owner on the ground that it should not be purchased.

The fact-finding or decision of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the party to the exercise of the right to explanation or the party to the trade in the name of the plaintiff inspection, on the grounds that the plaintiff's representative of the plaintiff inspection and the plaintiff's representative were registered under a title trust with the above non-party 2 on the grounds as stated in the decision after purchasing the forest land of this case, and the non-party 2 had the substance as the plaintiff's representative at the time of the purchase of the forest of this case. The non-party 2 was registered under a title trust with the plaintiff's representative at the time of the plaintiff's purchase of the forest of this case. Thus, the court below's fact-finding or decision to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the illegality of the exercise of the right to explanation due to the non-party 1's possession or the process of examining the evidence

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)