(a) Validity of the act of leasing the temple-owned real estate without permission from the competent authorities;

(b) The case holding that it violates the principle of good faith to claim invalidation of a contract on the ground that the temple, without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, fails to perform its duty to lease the real estate owned without obtaining permission and instead fails to gain unjust profits and makes it unreasonable;

A. The permission of the competent agency for the lease of an immovable property owned by a temple has the character of authorization to complete a legal effect by supplementing a juristic act. Thus, the act of leasing real property by a temple takes effect only after obtaining permission, and the act of leasing real property has no effect, but also becomes null and void as it does not take effect before obtaining permission, but it is not effective after final invalidation if the act of leasing prior to obtaining permission excludes or avoids permission from the beginning. However, even though the act of leasing based on the premise that permission is granted does not differ from the case of conclusive legal act which is not effective at all until obtaining permission, the act becomes retroactively effective upon obtaining permission, and becomes final and conclusive, if non-permission is not granted, it is in the state of flexible invalidation until obtaining permission.

(b)Article 11 of the former Act on the Management of Buddhist Property, Article 2 of the Civil Code;

Y. J. Syun Syun Syun Syun Park

(1) A borrower and one other (2)

1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The principal lawsuit: The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter the Defendants are only the Defendants) remove each structure listed in the attached Table 2 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter the Plaintiff are only the Plaintiff), and deliver the land listed in the attached Table 3.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay to the defendants an amount of KRW 100,00,000 and an amount of KRW 50,000 per annum from the day following the service of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of the imposition of the judgment of this case, and an amount of money calculated by the rate of 25,00 per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. The flexible invalidation of a lease agreement;

The following facts are acknowledged by Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 5, Eul evidence 6-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1 to 6, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 6, Eul evidence 2-1 to 6, Eul evidence 2-1, witness red real-name testimony, result of on-site inspection by this court, appraiser's evaluation result of the finance, and whole purport of oral argument.

The plaintiff was registered as an Buddhist organization pursuant to Article 6 of the old Buddhist Temple Property Management Act (Act No. 1087 of May 31, 1962), and is a temple registered as a traditional temple on July 28, 198 pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda of the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act and Article 3 of this Rule.

Each land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 is the Plaintiff’s owner. On May 17, 198, the non-party red real name, which was the chief of the Plaintiff’s temple, entered into a contract with the Defendants to lease the land portion listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter “instant land”) of each of the above lands with the rental deposit amount of KRW 30 million,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 19 years.

After leasing the instant land, the Defendants constructed a structure listed in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant structure”) on the ground.

However, the land of this case is within the boundary of the plaintiff temple, which is stipulated in Article 4 (2) of the former Buddhist Property Management Act, which was enforced at the time of the conclusion of the above lease contract (the Korean Traditional Temple Property Preservation Act was enforced from November 28, 1987, which was promulgated pursuant to Article 1 of the Addenda of the Korean Traditional Temples Preservation Act, and at this time, the former Buddhist Property Management Act applies).

When a temple intends to lease its property owned by it, the plaintiff did not obtain permission from the competent authorities (the competent authorities pursuant to Article 7 (1) of the former Non-Performing Property Management Act or the Do Governor pursuant to Article 7 (2) of the same Act and Article 3 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) pursuant to Article 11 (1) 2 of the former Non-Performing Property Management Act, despite the fact that the inspection is delegated with the authority of the competent authorities pursuant to paragraph (2) of the same Article

On the other hand, the permission of the competent agency for the lease of real estate owned by the temple has the nature of the authorization to complete its legal effect by supplementing the juristic act. Thus, the act of lease of real estate by the temple becomes effective only after permission is obtained, and the act of lease of real estate before permission is obtained, and the act of lease prior to obtaining permission is null and void as well as the effect of the claim. However, if the act of lease prior to obtaining permission is the act of lease excluded or locked from the beginning, it shall not be effective after final and conclusive invalidation. However, if the act of lease prior to obtaining permission does not take effect, even though it does not differ from the case of conclusive invalidation, which is a legal act prior to obtaining permission, until permission is obtained, the act becomes retroactively effective, and if permission is rejected, it becomes final and conclusive, and it shall be deemed that there is a state of flexible invalidation until the permission is obtained.

In this case, the plaintiff's act of leasing the land of this case against the defendants did not peep into circumstances to view that the act of leasing the land of this case includes the contents of excluding or avoiding permission from the beginning, and therefore, the above act of leasing is in a state of dynamic invalidation as it is premised on obtaining permission

2. Violation of the principle of good faith in removing the Plaintiff’s structure and requesting land transfer.

The plaintiff is seeking the removal of the structure of this case and the transfer of the land of this case against the defendants on the ground that the above lease contract is null and void. The following facts are acknowledged according to the following facts according to Gap evidence 2-1 to 6, Eul evidence 6-1 to 7-9, Eul evidence 8, and Eul evidence 8, and Eul evidence 7-1 to 9, Eul's red net testimony, the result of the examination by this court, and the whole purport of the argument.

The instant land is located at a point less than 1 km away from the rear ridges of the mountain surrounding the Plaintiff inspection. Since the instant red net name was appointed as the chief inspector of the Plaintiff’s inspection, it was necessary to take considerable expenses for managing and preserving the Plaintiff’s inspection, such as filing a lawsuit after having been appointed from the Korea-U.S. Buddhist Buddhist inspection to the chief inspector of the Plaintiff’s inspection, and collecting part of the lost property of the Plaintiff’s inspection, etc., the instant land was leased to the Defendants in order to raise the funds. However, if the chief inspector leases the real property of the inspection, the above red net name did not undergo these procedures, even though the chief inspector obtained permission.

The Defendants invested approximately KRW 200,00,000 in capital with the permission of construction, etc. from the Macheon-gun, and constructed the instant structure as seen earlier. After which, on February 15, 1990, the Plaintiff’s temple became widely known, Nonparty Lee Sung-sung was appointed as the chief inspector of the Plaintiff’s temple, and around that time, the surrounding area of the Plaintiff’s temple was designated as a national tourism complex. The said Lee Sung-gun was the representative director of the Ho-gun Development Co., Ltd., and the instant land was leased to the said corporation on July 191 upon the request of the Plaintiff for the lease of the instant land and the instant land to build a new delel with the permission of the sports center and the officetel.

According to the above facts, since the right to manage and dispose of the temple property belongs to the representative of the temple, so so long as the above lease contract was concluded by the order of the above Doz who was known to the plaintiff temple at the time, the validity of the above lease contract does not affect any internal procedure, such as resolution or approval of the affiliated group, even though it did not go through internal procedure. However, as seen above, since the above lease contract is in a state of flexible invalidation in relation to the permission of the competent agency, it can be retroactively effective when the plaintiff obtains permission from the competent agency

Therefore, the Plaintiff, as a lessor, has the duty to obtain a lease permit from the competent authorities, and the surrounding day of the Plaintiff’s temple is designated as a national tourist complex, and an amusement park was created in the Japan-gun of the instant land, and the Defendants were granted permission for the construction of the instant structure. Although the instant land is located within a considerable distance from the Plaintiff’s temple under the law, as seen earlier, if the Plaintiff files an application for permission for the said lease agreement in light of the fact that the instant land is located within a considerable distance from the Plaintiff’s temple, as seen earlier, and is practically lacking in its internality, it seems that the competent authorities will be granted permission, barring special circumstances. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff, without having to make any effort to obtain permission, intended to obtain more rents, and leased the instant land to the Defendant, which was leased to the Defendant Forest Development Corporation.

As can be seen, it is not permissible for the Plaintiff, who is obliged to provide the Defendants with permission to implement the above lease agreement in a state of dynamic invalidation, to assert that the above lease agreement is null and void on the ground that the Plaintiff was null and void by intentionally failing to perform the above obligation and on the ground that it was caused by nonperformance of the said obligation, without intentionally failing to perform the said obligation, is in violation of the good faith principle.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition, while the defendant's claim of this case is subject to rescission that the plaintiff's claim of this lawsuit will be dismissed, and as long as the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as above, the plaintiff's claim of this case has already been extinguished.

Judges Maximum-type (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chulon