[1] In a case where a temple does not comply with the constitution of the religious group to which it belongs, and its faith and respect are combined, and the religious group to which it belongs is removed, whether the inspection itself is changed (negative), and whether the division of the inspection itself is recognized (negative)

[2] Whether the change of a registered titleholder's name is effective (negative)

[3] Whether there is a benefit in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of registration of change of indication made within the scope of maintaining the identity of the registered titleholder (negative)

[4] The case holding that, in case where a registered titleholder whose name the indication of real estate was changed from the "Korea Buddhist Mascopia" to the "Mascopia" was completed and the registration of change was completed and the registration of change was combined to the "Mascopia", and the legitimate owner of the real estate was the entity as a separate inspection of the same name "Mascopia", the legitimate owner of the real estate was not the legitimate owner of the real estate of the real estate of the real estate of the real estate of the real estate of the real estate of the real estate of the Republic of Korea, because the indication of the "Mascopia" was not a new name of the Korean Buddhist Mascopia and the changed registration of change

[1] Even if a temple does not follow the constitution of the religious group to which it belongs, and its faith and reputation were combined, it is merely that it was made by an individual to withdraw from the religious group to which it belongs, and it does not result in a change in the members of the religious group of the temple itself, which has been established as the subject to the ownership of independent rights and obligations, and as long as the inspection has been established once, the division of the inspection itself is not recognized.

[2] The change of the indication of a registered titleholder is merely a change of rights to the extent that the identity of the registered titleholder is maintained, and it does not result in the change of rights to the extent that the indication on the registration is consistent with the actual identity.

[3] If the registration of change of indication made in a manner that undermines the identity of the registered titleholder, and the registration becomes the result of expressing that of another person, the original registered titleholder may seek cancellation of the registration of change against the new registered titleholder. However, in cases where the change of indication was made within the scope that maintains the identity of the registered titleholder, even if it was erroneous, the registration of change of indication was made by submitting the prescribed document, and thus, it is not allowed to claim cancellation of the registration of change of indication as a lawsuit, because it was

[4] The case holding that, in case where a registered titleholder whose name the indication of real estate was changed from the "Korea Buddhist Mascopia" to the "Mascopia" was completed and the registration of change was completed and the registration of change was combined to the "Mascopia", and the legitimate owner of the real estate was the entity as a separate temple "Mascopia" of the same name, the legitimate owner of the real estate was not the name of the Korean Buddhist Mascopia and the changed registration titleholder was not the name of the new entity, and the registration of change of the above indication was made, and there was no benefit in the lawsuit to seek the registration of change of the indication was made.

[1] Articles 31 and 68 of the Civil Act, Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 31 and 48 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [3] Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 31 and 48 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [4] Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 30, 31 and 48 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da43545 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 467), Supreme Court Decision 93Da60045 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2766), Supreme Court Decision 93Da33951 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3505), Supreme Court Decision 94Da41249 delivered on December 9, 1997 (Gong198Sang, 205) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 98Da60903 delivered on June 11, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1369) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 193Da13949 delivered on September 13, 199, 193

Plaintiff Buddhist Temple (Attorney Song-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1’s temple and one other (Attorney Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na5400 delivered on November 18, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on whether the instant real estate is owned by the Plaintiff’s temple

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the inspection of this case was merely an individual inspection who did not have an substance as the inspection of this case. Defendant 2 started work for the construction of the inspection of this case with the new village with the consent of the heir of the new village, constructed a new inspection building and completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the inspection itself (hereinafter referred to as the "inspection of this case"). Accordingly, the inspection of this case was owned by the owner of each real estate listed in the attached list of the judgment of the court below, which is the site of the inspection of this case and the building as the owner of the independent right and obligation, and the inspection of this case was registered as the representative of the inspection of this case on October 22, 1973, and it was still registered as the representative of the inspection of this case by the new village of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "JGM"), and it was still registered as the representative of the inspection of this case under the name of Defendant 2 and the new owner of the inspection of this case under the name of the plaintiff 2 and the new owner of this case.

However, even if the inspection does not follow the constitution of the religious group to which it belongs, and even if it is combined with a new degree and a deceased's degree and a deceased's degree, it is merely that individuals leave the religious group to which they belong, and it does not result in a change in the ownership of the inspection itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da43545, Dec. 13, 1994; 93Da6045, Jul. 14, 1995). Even if Defendant 2, who was well known of the inspection of this case, went away from the inspection of this case, as the representative of the inspection of this case, the inspection of this case, which was established as the subject of independent rights and obligations, remains separate from that of the inspection of this case, and the inspection of this case, which was established as the non-party 2, who was not a representative of the inspection of this case, can still be removed from the inspection of this case, and since the inspection of this case's own division of the inspection of this case is not established (see, e. 297Da9496, etc.

Therefore, the inspection of this case is established as the subject of independent rights and duties and at the same time the legitimate owner of the real estate of this case, which belongs to the inspection of this case itself, shall be limited to the inspection of this case which maintains its identity and shall not be a defendant's temple that can exist only as a separate religious organization. Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport shall be justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the ownership of the property of this case, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Defendant 2 knew that the registration of change of the indication of the real estate in this case was made from "Plaintiff Inspection" to "Defendant 1 Inspection" on February 15, 1995 with the approval of the Director General of Tae Jong-si, who was the transfer of the above type, but the registration of change of the indication of the registered titleholder is made only for the purpose of making the indication on the registration ledger in conformity with the actual conditions to the extent that the identity of the registered titleholder is maintained, and it does not cause any change in rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da60903, Jun. 11, 1999). Since the inspection in this case was established as the subject of independent rights and obligations and thereafter the ownership of the real estate in this case was later changed, the ownership of the real estate in this case can not be changed after the change of the registration titleholder in this case's name is not the same as the plaintiff 1's grounds for appeal concerning change of the registration titleholder in this case.

2. As to the ground of appeal concerning the request for cancellation of registration of change of a registered titleholder

If the change of the indication of a registered titleholder is made in a manner that undermines the identity of the registered titleholder and the registration thereof becomes the result of expressing another person, the original registered titleholder may seek the cancellation of such change from the new registered titleholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da39167, Nov. 13, 1992). However, in cases where the change of indication was made within the scope that maintains the identity of the registered titleholder, even if it was erroneous, the change of indication was made within the scope that maintains the identity of the registered titleholder, making a registration of correction by submitting the prescribed document, and thus, seeking the cancellation of the change of indication is not allowed as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da60903, Jun. 11,

However, as seen earlier at the time of the registration of change of indication in this case, as long as there is no room for the defendant's inspection to still exist, it cannot be deemed that the changed name "Defendant 1 inspection" is the same as the name of the present defendant's inspection, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a separate existence at the time of the inspection "in addition to the inspection in this case, it cannot be deemed that the indication is the same as that of the present defendant's inspection. Thus, there is no difference in part in the fact that the indication "the plaintiff's inspection" and the indication "Defendant 1 inspection" are the name of the plaintiff's inspection, and there is no difference in the fact that the indication "the plaintiff's inspection in this case's name is the name of the last inspection in that they are the name of the inspection in this case.

Therefore, the registration of change of indication in this case is merely conducted within the extent that does not harm the identity of the registered titleholder and thus cannot be claimed for cancellation by lawsuit. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration of change of indication in the same purport is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on change of indication of the registered titleholder, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal as to this point and the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants who are appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)