(a) The case holding that if Gap was registered in the name of inspection in the forest register before the temple becomes a chief inspector, and had already gone through several names, the inspection cannot be deemed to have been an individual inspection which was carried out by Gap;

B. Whether, in the case of an inspection to which a final inspection belongs, the final inspection can only change the final inspection according to the intention of the widely known person, regardless of the will of the believers (negative)

A. The case holding that if Gap had been registered in the name of inspection in the forest register before the temple becomes a chief of inspection, and had already gone through several names, the inspection cannot be deemed to have been an individual inspection which was carried out by Gap.

(b)No inspection may be replaced without permission by the final inspection of a third party, not by the individual inspection, but by the final inspection of a third party at its own will, regardless of the will of the third party;

(b)Article 31(b) of the Civil Code;

B. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu2902 delivered on October 10, 1989 (Gong1989, 1663)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other Defendants (Attorney Shin Chang-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na36002 delivered on May 16, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that Non-party 1, who acquired the management and operation authority of the inspection from the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 1, was the representative of the inspection team in the old temple of 1940 and was appointed as the chief of the private inspection team of ○○○○, and the non-party 1 was the representative of the inspection team of ○○○○○, the non-party 2, who was appointed as the chief of the inspection team of 195, newly constructed the Buddhist church of 195, and registered the inspection on the inspection team of 1963, and was appointed as the chief of the inspection team of ○○○, the non-party 1, who was appointed as the chief of the inspection team of ○○○, the non-party 3, who was not the representative of the inspection team of ○○, the plaintiff's non-party 2, who was the representative of the inspection team of ○○, and the plaintiff's non-party 3, who was the representative of the inspection of this case.

However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 13's evidence Nos. 11 and 2 (a certified copy of each closed forest register and a certified copy of the forest register) and some testimony of non-party Nos. 1 of the court below witness of the court below, the saving ground of this case had already been registered in the name of ○○○○ as of 1929, and the above non-party Nos. 1 had already been widely known prior to being known to ○○○ in 1940. Thus, even if the facts recognized by the court below were combined, the above non-party Nos. 1 cannot be deemed as an individual inspection conducted by the above non-party No. 1.

In addition, if the inspection of this case was not a personal inspection created by the above non-party 1 or non-party 3, but the inspection was conducted by the non-party 3 et al., the above non-party 3 et al. can not be changed without permission by only one's own will regardless of his will (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu2902 delivered on October 10, 1989).

Therefore, the court below should have further deliberated on whether the above non-party 1 had the substance of ○○ as the non-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)