Cases where the disposition of property of a temple is null and void;

If the property disposition of a temple seriously impedes the preservation or operation of the temple and it is impossible to carry out its social activities as a temple, and if it is impossible to carry out its existence value is lost and its existence is denied, it is null and void even if it is based on a certain procedure.

Article 11 of the Buddhist Property Management Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da879 delivered on June 2, 1964 (Seoul High Court Decision 6562 delivered on June 2, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 12Nu139 delivered on June 2, 196; Decision No. 1575 delivered on June 2, 196

Plaintiff Incorporated Foundation

Defendant Inspection

Daejeon District Court (4294 civil correspondence422) in the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall divide 300 information on the part indicated in the annexed drawing (A) from among the 403 1 forest land in the 19th half of the 19th half of the 19th half of the 19th half of the 196th half of the 1952. The defendant shall execute the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on March 16, 1952 on that part.

The court costs shall be borne by the defendant, and if the above claim is groundless in the trial, the defendant sought a judgment that the plaintiff shall implement the procedure for share transfer registration based on a contribution act on March 16, 1952 relating to 400/40/403.29, 300/40.29, 1952. The defendant's appeal shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court of first and second instances filed a judgment that all the costs of lawsuit should be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff corporation is an incorporated foundation established by the permission of the Minister for Delivery of sentence No. 28 of July 28, 1952, and is operating Bosong High School in the Daejeon District Court in September 12 of that year since the registration of its incorporation was completed with the Daejeon District Court, and there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant that 403 1 forest land No. 407-1 forest land No. 403-2 forest land No. 407 in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnamnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, the purport of the claim was that

Defendant Inspection: (a) evidence Nos. 1, 6-1, 6-2; (b) evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, 2-1, 3; (c) evidence Nos. 1-2, 2-2, and 3; and (d) evidence No. 4; and (c) evidence No. 5 that the authenticity is acknowledged by the testimony of Non-Party 2 before the remand and Non-Party 2 before the remand; and (d) evidence No. 5 presumed that the authenticity is established; and (c) considering the testimony of Non-Party 1 and part of Non-Party 2’s testimony, Defendant Inspection shall contribute property to the foundation at Daejeon, Non-Party 1-2, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, and Non-Party 2, Non-Party 3, Non-Party 1, who planned to establish and operate the school, with the permission of the above Minister of Education and Human Resources 4039; and evidence No.30 of Non-Party 2.

Therefore, in full view of the following facts: (a) the forest of this case is determined on the validity of the disposition of the forest of this case: (b) the aforementioned witness, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 2 (part of the testimony), Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 5, the witness of the court below after remand, and the result of the examination in the trial after remanding the case; (c) the forest of this case is within the boundaries of the defendant temple as the forest of the defendant temple, and there are major buildings outside the main body of the defendant temple; (d) the forest of this case is a stone tower (Korean National Cemetery 396); and (d) the insular tower (Korean National Assembly No. 395), the insular team (Korean National Assembly No. 395), the insular celebite, the monthly celebite, the old celebite, the old celebite, and other large cultural properties; and (d) the disposal of the property of this case is not likely to cause serious harm to the existence or operation of the defendant temple, and it is not likely to cause serious harm to exist.

If so, even if the property disposition is based on a certain procedure, it can be interpreted that this property disposition is not effective as a matter of course.

As explained above, since the disposal of the property in this case is deemed to be null and void automatically, the claim for ownership transfer registration and the claim for ownership transfer registration based on a contribution act as a preliminary in the trial at the court of the case, which the plaintiff seeks against the defendant, should be dismissed as there is no reason to do so. Therefore, it is unreasonable that the original judgment admitted the plaintiff's primary claim, and since the defendant's appeal has a reason to do so, the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party.

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