(a) The interest in lawsuits demanding confirmation of the public knowledge;

(b) standing to sue the Buddhist Order in a lawsuit for confirmation of recognition;

(c) nature of the claim for prohibition of interference with performance of widely known duties and standing parties;

D. The nature of the sloping and the sloping act

(e) Method of correction where a registration for correction of indication has been made, though no identity exists;

A. If the existence of well-known status is beyond the status of religious activities and becomes a premise for determining the propriety of claims regarding disputes over specific legal relations as a legal entity, it shall be subject to judicial review.

B. Although the end group and its affiliated temples are internal management and supervisory relations, they are externally independent organizations, so the end group is legally direct and specific in the case of request for confirmation of well-knownness unless it is proved that there is a specific interest.

(c) A claim for prohibition of interference with public duty is a performance suit in its nature, so it may be recognized if it is deemed necessary to request in advance.

(d) Unless an inspection is an association consisting of the inherent collective property of a new-level organization from the beginning or an individual inspection is not an inspection, it shall not be attributed to the inspection which is the foundation and disposed of at will.

E. Where the indication of a registered titleholder has been registered, if the identity between each registration cannot be recognized, the cancellation of the registration shall not be sought by an objection by the registered public official, and the cancellation of the registration shall be dealt with by litigation.

Articles 6, 9, and 11 of the former Buddhist Property Management Act; Articles 31, 48, and 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act;

2. Supreme Court Decision 68Ma1301 Decided July 30, 1969 (Special Cases I: Article 9(4) of the Non-Performing Property Management Act (Special Cases) No. 17 ② 41588 Decided December 22, 1981 (Gong674No172), Supreme Court Decision 81Nu42 Decided February 23, 1982 (Article 48(93) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 48(93) of the Non-Performing Property Management Act, Supreme Court Decision 85Da81, 85Meu325 Decided November 12, 1985 (Article 214(53) of the Civil Act).

Korea Buddhist Tr. Tr. Tr. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T.

Republic of Korea Buddhist Thai et al. two others

1. The plaintiffs' action against the defendant 1's non-Korean Buddhist Korea is dismissed.

2. It is confirmed that in the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, both the defendant 1 and the defendant 2, the two-party 135 Mao-dong Mao-dong Mao-dong 135 were the plaintiff Kim Ma-won.

3. As the chief of the plaintiff Kim Jong-won, the defendant Kim Jong-soo in Korea will not perform any act interfering with the execution of duties as the chief of the plaintiff Kim Jong-won.

4. In relation to each real estate listed in the separate sheet against the plaintiff T-S. T-S. T-S. S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

5. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the non-Korean-U.S.-U.S.-U. M. is assessed against the plaintiffs, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the remaining defendants

The defendants confirm that the notice of the Tympian 135 Mao-dong, Mai-dong, Mai-dong, the plaintiff Kim Man-won is the plaintiff.

The Defendants shall not commit any act interfering with the performance of duties as the chief executive officer of the said pair of rocks.

As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet against the plaintiff Tweak-si, the defendant Tweak-si, South Korea, followed the procedure for cancellation of registration of correction made to Tweak-si and Tweak-si, South Korea on the ground of the error in the application No. 3475 of the receipt on February 4, 1987 by the Government of the Seoul District Court.

Litigation costs are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Main safety defense;

A. The Defendants’ legal representative is the old-gu Uniform, which was registered with the chief minister at the time of the government, the competent authorities, and the Plaintiff Kim Jong-won, as the representative is not qualified, and the lawsuit in this case should be dismissed in an unlawful manner. Thus, as seen thereafter, the Defendants’ legal representative is a Buddhist organization with the substance as a temple registered with the competent authorities under the old Non-Korean Buddhist Property Management Act, and the representative of the said Tweak company is the Plaintiff Kim Jong-won, who was appointed to be well-known from the Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-sung's legal representative, and thus, the Defendants' legal representative' legal representative cannot be accepted as there is no ground for rejection.

(b) Profits of lawsuits against the claims for confirmation of Twinama; and

If the existence of a specific person's well-known status beyond the status of a religious activity and becomes a premise for determining the propriety of a claim regarding a dispute over other specific legal relations, it shall be subject to judicial review, not where the contents of the judgment are equivalent to the interpretation of a religious doctrine. Thus, ex officio, it is sufficient to examine whether the dispute inspector's qualification as a party to the claim for confirmation of a pairambrance is the defendant's non-Korean assistant, the same Korean Buddhist Syun-Syun and the same old syunsyunsyunsyunsyunsyunsyunsyunsyunsyun, and if it is only a mere dispute over the status of a representative of an individual who is in the status of the institution, the individual has no legal interest. However, as seen earlier in this case, it may interfere with the business performance of the representative, such as religious activities and the right of inspection, and may interfere with the business performance of the representative, and if the defendant's well-being's obligation is infringed, it may be brought against the defendant's obligation.

However, in full view of the provisions of Articles 3, 9(1), 12, and 13 of the former Buddhist Property Management Act, a temple under the same Act is an Buddhist association, independent right holder, separate from the final group, which is a national organization belonging to it, and it is apparent that it represents it, and that it has the right to manage and dispose of the temple property, and that it is evident that it has the right to manage and dispose of the temple property. Thus, even if it is prescribed in the final constitution that the final representative is entitled to manage and supervise the temple property, it is limited to regulating the internal relations between the final group and its affiliated inspection, and it is an external independent organization. Thus, in this case, it is not proved that the final group has a direct and specific interest with the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of the rejection of the defendant Korean Buddhist Property Management Act is unlawful against a person who is not a party.

C. The interest in the lawsuit against the claim for prohibition of interference with duties

ex officio, the plaintiffs' non-compliance claims can not be acknowledged in addition to claiming damages for infringement of the religious activities, property management, inspection right, etc. which are one absolute authority in the future where there is a high possibility of such interference, as to whether there is a benefit in the lawsuit against the plaintiff's non-performance of widely known duties against the same order of the Republic of Korea. The plaintiffs' claims for the above non-compliance claims can not be deemed to be a lawsuit for future performance (if it is interfered with at the time of the conclusion of the pleading, it shall be reasonable to determine it, and as seen later, it shall be possible to control the inspection of this case in fact in the relation of the defendant inspection and the defendant's return, and if it is possible to obstruct the performance of duties in the relation of both parties.

However, it is illegal against the defendant's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's standing for the same reason as mentioned in the above sub-paragraph.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. We examine the plaintiffs' claims for confirmation of awareness and prohibition of interference with the defendant's non-Korean-U.S. P. T. T. T. T. T. T. and T. T. T.

각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증, 갑 제12호증, 을 제1호증(각불교단체등록증), 갑 제5호증(주지취임등록신청반려), 갑 제6호증의 1(사찰등록에 대한 현황파악회신), 같은 호증의 2(조계종 사찰현황), 갑 제7호증(종헌), 갑 제8호증의 1(증명원), 같은 호증의 2(각서), 같은 호증의 3(한국불교 태고종 종헌), 갑 제9호증(증명원), 을 제3호증의 5, 6(각 인감증명서), 공성부분은 성립에 다툼이 없고, 사성부분은 증인 전명환의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제4호증(통지서), 공성부분은 성립에 다툼이 없고, 사성부분은 변론의 전취지에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제8호증(서신), 증인 김용석의 증언에 의하여 각 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제2호증(봉선본말사지), 갑 제3호증(임명장), 갑 제4호증(재직증명원), 갑 제13호증(주지명부), 증인 전명환의 증언에 의하여 각 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제3호증의 1(종단이종신청), 같은 호증의 2(불간섭통보서), 같은 호증의 3(연판장), 을 제6호증(결의회의록), 을 제7호증(신도명부)의 각 기재(다만, 을 제3호증의 3의 기재 중 뒤에서 믿지 않는 부분 제외)와 증인 김용석, 같은 전명환의 각 증언(다만, 증인 전명환의 증언 중 뒤에서 믿지 않는 부분 제외), 의정부 시장에 대한 사실조회 회시결과에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 의정부시 장암동 산 135에 소재한 이 사건 계쟁사찰인 쌍암사는 그 초창이 미상이나 조선왕조 고종 17년(1880년경)에 불운화주가 비구니 유원과 합력하여 중창한 사찰로서 당시 조계종 제25교구 봉선사의 말사이었는데 6.25 전란중에 사찰건물이 전소되어 절터만 남았으나 장암동 주민 등의 신도들이 1954.경 피고 구순복(법명, 만선)을 주지로 내세워 법당, 요사건물들을 다시 축조하고, 그 무렵부터 위 구순복은 위 사찰에 지주(지주)하면서 그의 관리아래 불도봉행이 주재되어 오고 사찰이 관리되어온 사실, 한편 우리나라 불교계의 비구, 대처 양측은 반목과 대립을 거듭하다가 1962.3.22. 양측의 선출대표로 조직된 불교비상종회에서 새로운 통합종단인 대한불교 조계종을 설립하고, 그 종헌을 제정, 공포함에 따라 위 통합종단인 대한불교 조계종은 종래의 양 종파로부터 그 재산관리 및 사무일체를 승계받아 위 비구, 대처측 종단은 이에 흡수되고, 양 종단은 소멸하게 된 사실, 대한불교 조계종은 1962.12.14. 구 불교재산관리법(1962.5.31. 공포 법률 제1087호) 제6조 에 따라 문교부에 불교단체등록을 하고, 또한 대처승파에 속했던 일부사찰과 승려들은 통합종단인 대한불교 조계종에 흡수, 통합되는 것을 반대하여 1970.1.15. 별도로 소외 박대륜을 종정으로 한 한국불교 태고종을 창립하여 종헌을 제정하고, 1970.5.8. 문교부에 불교단체등록을 하였는데, 그 종헌에 의하면 태고종은 극락사와 승가암 2개의 기본사찰로 조직된 종단으로서, 새로운 사찰을 창설하는 외에 다른 종단과 연고있는 사찰은 산하사찰로 등록하지 아니하는 사실, 피고 구순복은 1963.1.18. 구 불교재산관리법 제7조 , 제9조 , 동법시행령 제3조 에 따라 관할관청인 경기도 지사에게 위 쌍암사를 대한불교 조계종 소속의 사찰로 불교단체등록을 하였는데 다만 주지취임등록은 이를 신청하지 아니한 사실, 소외 대한불교 조계종 종단에서는 1962.10.13.이래 수뢰에 걸쳐 법륜, 도철, 만송, 화엄, 보진, 인덕을, 1982.7.13.에는 일면(황상욱)을 주지로 임명하여 쌍암사에 파견하였으나, 피고 구순복 및 쌍암사 신도들이 그때마다 주지취임 및 대한불교 조계종의 위 사찰에서의 종교활동을 방해하여 이들은 주지로 취임하지 못하게 된 사실, 피고 구순복은 조계종 종단의 위와 같은 새로운 주지임명을 거부하다가 1986.4.5.경 신도 142명의 동의를 받아 쌍암사를 그 소속종단인 조계종에서 탈종하여 태고종으로 개종하고, 피고 한국불교 태고종으로부터 쌍암사 주지로 임명받은 후 같은 해 5.26. 의정부시에 조계종 탈종 및 태고종에의 종단이종등록과 주지취임등록을 마치고, 쌍암사 신도 400명 중 109명은 1988.3.18.에 이르러 쌍암사 주지를 피고 구순복으로 추대함과 동시에 신도들은 한국불교 태고종으로 이종할 것을 다시 결의한 사실, 반면, 불교 조계종 종단도 종헌, 종법에 따라 1987.3.13. 원고 김순원(법명:시현)을 쌍암사의 주지로 다시 임명하고, 이에 따라 위 원고가 계쟁사찰에 주지로 취임하려 하였으나, 피고 구순복 등의 방해를 받아 역시 주지취임을 하지 못하였고, 같은 해 4.16. 의정부시에 주지취임등록을 신청하였으나 태고종의 피고 구순복으로부터 종단이종 및 주지취임등록신청이 접수되어 있어, 종파간의 분쟁에는 개입할 수 없다는 이유로 주지취임등록신청이 반려된 사실 및 조계종 종헌에 의하면, 총무원장은 종헌, 종법에 따라 사찰의 주지를 임면한다(제44조 제3항), 총무원장은

Each court may, in accordance with the provisions of the Final Constitution and the Religious Order, recognize the facts that the property belonging to the Order and the Inspection is subject to approval in its disposal (Article 4 of the same Act), and the statements in subparagraph 3-3 of the evidence and the testimony in part of the summons of the witness are not trustable and otherwise there is no counter-proof.

With respect to the plaintiffs' claim for the confirmation of the appointment of the plaintiff Kim Jong-won and the prohibition of interference with the execution of duties as the chief executive officer of the plaintiff Kim Jong-won, the plaintiffs, the representative of the two parties to the dispute of this case, the plaintiffs asserted that all of the two parties were to be the chief executive officer of the inspection of the defendant Kim Jong-won, and that all of them were to be the chief executive officer of the inspection of the plaintiff Kim Jong-won, and that they were to be the chief executive officer of the inspection of the defendant Kim Jong-won, and that they were to be the chief executive officer of the inspection of the plaintiff Kim Jong-won, and that they could not respond

Therefore, as long as the temple of this case was registered as a temple belonging to the Korea Buddhist Property Management Corporation pursuant to Article 6 of the old Buddhist Property Management Act without establishing or opening a separate end group against this time at the time of the incorporation of the non-Gu and countermeasure ties, it was not registered as the Buddhist temple of this case. From this point of view, as the temple was appointed as the chief inspector of the above temple from the type of the above inspection, it was not accepted by the competent government office on the ground that it is a religious dispute between the class and the class of the inspection, and it was not registered as the chief inspector of the above inspection. Further, even if the new temple was appointed as the chief inspector of the above inspection as the first class of the inspection, it was not actually known, and even if the new temple was appointed as the chief inspector of the above inspection, it is not possible to dismiss the plaintiff's representative's right of representation from the date of entry into force of the old Buddhist Property Management Act as the second class of the inspection of this case's new inspection of this case's association.

Therefore, Defendant Down-do, in addition to some new Dos, has passed a resolution to open the Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-do as a result of the withdrawal from the Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-do, and it was registered at his own discretion as a sweak temple, and even if the above sweak was appointed as a sweaker from the sweak and the above sweak group, he also becomes a sweaker and a new sweaker, apart from the fact that he was born and he was the sweaker, his act of opening the sweak and the sweaks in the above sweaker's sweaker's sweaker's sweak and the above sweaker's sweaker's sweaker's sweaker's sweaker's sweaker's sweaker's sweaker's sweaker's sweaker's s.

The defendants' legal representative argues that the defendant's order was registered as a temple belonging to the above Tranium was caused by the strong pressure of the Cho Jong-gun's Choun. The two parties, the plaintiff of the dispute of this case, originally, donated the fire-fighting village to the non-party 1, and the defendant's old uniform and the residents living in the Gu, rebuilding the temple building, and the above two parties' collective ownership of the above new buildings should be governed by the principle of collective ownership as to the above temple. Thus, it seems consistent with the above three articles of evidence No. 3 and Eul's evidence No. 3-4 (certificate of land donation), some testimony of the witness's name can not be trusted, and since the defendant's legal representative's new properties cannot be found to be jointly owned by the defendant's association or the defendant's new properties to be owned by the old temple No. 9 or 3 (certificate of the register of each real estate properties) and there is no clear evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's new properties are owned by the previous temple No. 1 or its new properties to be owned by the temple No. 2.

Therefore, the two parties, the industrial dispute inspector of this case, still belong to the steering division, and its chief chief is the plaintiff Kim Jong-won who is duly appointed by the steering division. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant Kim Jong-soo et al. continuously and repeatedly interfere with the operation and performance of his duties, such as the plaintiff Kim Jong-won et al., and there is a concern that it might interfere with the future's performance of duties, including these religious activities, and thus, it is necessary to request in advance the plaintiffs to prohibit such interference.

B. As to the claim for the cancellation of registration against the defendant 2-1, the defendant 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-1,

Comprehensively taking account of all the descriptions in Gap evidence 10-1, 2-1, 11-2, and testimony of Kim Jong-seok, without dispute over each establishment, each real estate listed in the separate list was registered in the name of Samsung-tae branch of the Seoul District Court No. 9089 on July 31, 1972, and the registration of ownership was changed in the name of two different types of real estate under the name of two different types of real estate, and then the above real estate was changed in the name of two different types of real estate, and then the registration of change in the name of two different types of real estate could not be asserted as invalid because there was an error in the indication of the registration titleholder at the time of application for the preservation of ownership of each of the real estate in this case, and the registration of change in the name of two different types of real estate in this case could not be asserted as invalid by the previous registration of change in the name of two different types of real estate under the name of two different types of real estate under the name of the registration titleholder at the time of application for correction.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case against the defendant's non-Korean-U.S. M. We dismiss the lawsuit of this case against the defendant's non-Korean-U.S., and the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of knowledge and prohibition of obstruction of duties against the old uniform such as the defendant's non-Korean-U.S. P. M. T. T. T. and the claim for prohibition of obstruction of duties is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles

Judges Cho Soon-il (Presiding Judge)