The validity of the disposal of the temple property without taking the procedures prescribed by the Buddhist Property Management Act.

The old Inspection Ordinance and the current Buddhist Property Management Act prescribe certain procedures to be followed in the disposal of the property for the purpose of contributing to the improvement of social culture by protecting the temple property, and invalidates the disposal of the property that does not follow the procedures, and even if the property was disposed of as a matter within the purpose of the inspection according to the procedures, if it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the inspection due to the disposal of the property, or if it results in the result of denying the existence of the inspection itself, the disposal of the property shall be null and void.

Article 11 of the Buddhist Property Management Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da879 delivered on June 2, 1964 (Seoul High Court Decision 6562, Supreme Court Decision 12Da139 delivered on December 13, 196, Article 11(3) of the Act on the Management of Non-Formal Property, Article 140(8) of the Civil Procedure Act (Supreme Court Decision 1161 delivered on April 13, 1976, Article 11(12)1576 of the Act on the Management of Non-Formal Property, Article 536 of the court Gazette

Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation

Defendant Inspection

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (Supreme Court Decision 61Du420)

Supreme Court Decision 63Da879 Delivered on June 2, 1964

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's attorney sought a judgment on the order Dong-dong District, and the plaintiff's attorney modified the purport of the claim in the trial before remanding the case, and the defendant will implement the first procedure for the registration of the ownership transfer due to the act of contribution made on March 15, 1952 concerning the part A of the attached drawing among the 7-1 forest land of 1, 342, 7-1, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 70

Preliminaryly, with respect to the shares of 200/342.7 out of the 7th 7th fest of the above forest land, the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the contribution act will be implemented on March 15, 1952.

The first and second trials filed a judgment that all the costs of lawsuit should be borne by the defendant.

(1) The facts that the plaintiff corporation completed the registration of incorporation on September 12, 1952 with the permission of the Minister for Delivery of literature dated July 28, 1952, and that the plaintiff corporation is operating the Bosong High School is not clearly disputing the plaintiff's assertion, so the defendant is deemed to have led to the confession of the defendant, and the fact that the 1, 342 single 7th 1, 342 single 7th 1, 7th 1, 342 of the 7th 7th Cheongsan-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Cheong

(2) In full view of the testimony of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 4 (Transfer Certificate), subparagraph 1-3 (Transfer Certificate), and subparagraph 2-1 (Gift Certificate), each of which can be recognized by the testimony of Nonparty 1, the defendant temple planned to establish and operate a juristic person by contributing property as well as to the 11 inspections located in Daejeon Special Metropolitan City, the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, each of the testimony of the non-party 1 before the remand testimony, and the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the defendant temple planned to establish and manage the school by obtaining the above testimony of the non-party 4 and the non-party 2's testimony of the non-party 5 (Certificate), the non-party 4 and the non-party 3's testimony of the non-party 4 and the non-party 2, the non-party 4 and the non-party 3's testimony of the court below after obtaining the above testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony of the plaintiff 4 and the non-party 2.

(3) However, the defendant's original Buddhist property cannot be used for purposes other than the original principle, the law, the scam, the scam, and the scam, and the temple cannot be used for purposes other than the original purpose of law. The plaintiff foundation is merely a juristic person with the purpose of "understanding and higher education based on the fundamental ideology of education" rather than the purpose of inspection, as stipulated in its articles of incorporation. Thus, the defendant's property contribution is legally null and void as it goes beyond the basic purpose of inspection, and even if it is not so, it is a national report created before 1261 years from now, which is designated as a national report by the law, the tower, the scam, the scam, etc. belonging to the defendant temple, and the scamam, etc. in this forest, which is the result of this property and the act of contribution made by the defendant temple which is unfavorable from the defendant temple as a result, is in violation of the public order order and good morals.

In light of the law of Buddhist temple, law enforcement and new Buddhist temple's 0th anniversary of the revenue of the temple, the temple's 10th anniversary of the revenue of the above temple's 7th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the revenue of the temple's 7th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the revenue of the temple's 7th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the revenue of the temple's 7th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the revenue of the temple's 7th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the revenue of the temple's 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the above 6th anniversary of the fact that the 6th anniversary of the above revenue of the temple's 6th anniversary of the above revenue of the temple's 6th anniversary of the above revenue of the temple's 3th anniversary of the past 6th of the inspection's.

Therefore, the above act of the defendant temple's contribution to the plaintiff should be viewed as null and void in light of the case of a specific forest portion 200 information unit, and therefore the remaining issues should not be determined. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of the main lawsuit premised on the validity of the above contribution contract should be dismissed, i.e., the plaintiff's claim of the main lawsuit under the premise that the above contribution contract is valid. However, the original judgment accepting it is reasonable, and the defendant's appeal is reasonable. It is so decided as per Disposition by the losing party.

Judges Saman-man (Presiding Judge) Kim Lee Hong-soo