[1] The requirements for an individual inspection to be the subject of the independent rights and duties under the former Act on the Management of Buddhist Property

[2] Whether a request for cancellation of registration of change of a registered titleholder is made within the extent not impairing the identity of the registered titleholder (negative)

[1] The owner of an individual temple who was merely merely a physical facility for the Buddhist purpose and did not have a substance as a temple is registered as an Buddhist organization under the old Buddhist Property Management Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Traditional Temple Preservation Act, Law No. 3974, Nov. 28, 1987). If the temple property was to be reverted to the name of the temple itself, which was registered by the owner’s donation, the temple becomes the subject of independent rights and obligations with the substance as the temple from that time.

[2] The change of the indication of a registered titleholder is limited to the case where the indication on the registration is made in order to coincide with the actual registration within the extent that the identity of the registered titleholder is maintained, and it does not cause any change of rights. Thus, unless the change of indication is made in such a way as to impair the identity of the registered titleholder and thus it leads to the result of expressing another person, the registration of the change of indication shall be made by submitting the prescribed document, even if the change of indication was erroneously made, and it is not permitted to claim the cancellation of the change of indication by lawsuit

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Code, Article 6 of the former Buddhist Property Management Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Preservation of Traditional Temples Act, Law No. 3974 of Nov. 28, 1987) / [2] Articles 48, 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit] Articles 30, 31, and 48 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da2442 delivered on October 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3118), Supreme Court Decision 93Da43545 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 467), Supreme Court Decision 94Da41508 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3514), Supreme Court Decision 94Da45562 delivered on January 26, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 723) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da39167 delivered on November 13, 1992 (Gong193, 1910Sang, 195Ma3989 delivered on September 16, 1995 (Gong1995 decided September 36, 195)

Korea-U.S. J. J. J. J. J. S. (Attorney Park Han-seok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] Park Jae-sil (Attorney Park Jae-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 98Na4699 delivered on October 30, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the inspection of this case was owned by the deceased, who was purchased from the non-party 2 and managed and operated by the non-party 1, but was enforced on May 31, 1962 by the Buddhist Temple Preservation Act (amended by Act No. 3974 of Nov. 28, 1987) by the non-party 1, the deceased was identified as the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's title of the inspection of this case.

In a case where an individual temple, which was merely merely a physical facility for Buddhist purposes and did not have an substance as a temple, was registered as an Buddhist organization under the former Non-Performing Property Management Act by the owner, and the temple property was reverted to the name of the temple itself, which was registered by the owner’s donation, the temple becomes the subject to whom its independent rights and obligations accrue by having its substance as the temple from that time (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da2442, Oct. 28, 1994; 94Da41508, Sept. 26, 1995). The inspection of this case is deemed to have owned the real property of this case as the subject subject to ownership ownership transfer or ownership preservation, which was independent of the rights and obligations derived from the time of registration of ownership transfer or ownership preservation in the name of "Seungjin".

In addition, the registration of change of indication of a registered titleholder is limited to the case where the indication on the registration is made in order to coincide with the actual registration within the extent that the identity of the registered titleholder is maintained, and it does not cause any change of rights. Thus, unless the change of indication is made in such a way as to impair the identity of the registered titleholder, and it does not lead to the result of expressing another person, the registration of change of indication shall be made by submitting a prescribed document, even if the change of indication was erroneous, and the filing of a lawsuit to cancel the registration of change of indication shall not be permitted as there is no benefit of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da39167, Nov. 13, 199

Therefore, as seen earlier, insofar as the inspection of this case was established as the subject to whom the right and obligation belongs, and became the owner of the real estate of this case, the indication of the registered titleholder of this case was later corrected as the "Korean Buddhist Subdivision", or returned to the original state, even if it was returned, the indication of the registered titleholder of this case, "Korea Buddhist Subdivision", or the indication of the registered titleholder of "Large Subdivision", cannot be deemed as the same indication indicating that the real estate of this case is the ownership of the inspection of this case, and thus, the change of the indication of the registered titleholder of this case, "Korea Buddhist Subdivision", to the extent that it does not harm the identity of the registered titleholder, can be deemed as being performed within the extent that it does not harm the identity of the registered titleholder, and even if it was conducted without due process as alleged by the plaintiff, such error can be corrected by the method of registration of correction. Thus, this part of the lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure of registration of cancellation of the indication cannot be deemed unlawful as there is no interest in the plaintiff's lawsuit.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the identity of the registered titleholder, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit, and there is no error in the incomplete hearing. The grounds of appeal as to this point and

2. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the chief executive officer of the class of the law shall be appointed by the chief executive officer (the main sentence of Article 60) by election of the members registered at the seat of the class of the law (the chief executive officer of the law), and the chief executive officer of the temple, the registration of which has been completed due to the contribution act, shall be appointed by the chief executive officer on the recommendation of the founder and his successor, and the chief executive officer of the private master office shall be appointed by the president on the recommendation of the owner (Article 61). In light of the fact that Article 61 of the class of the law provides that the chief executive officer of the private master office as the chief executive officer upon the recommendation of the owner, Article 61 of the class of the law provides the "owner" as the chief executive officer of the private master office. In light of the fact that Article 61 of the class of the law provides the "private master office" as the chief executive officer of the private master office, the private master office of the law refers to the private Buddhist facility owned by the owner.

Therefore, the part of the court below's explanation as if the inspection of this case was a private master's death under the above Hunting Law is erroneous. However, since the inspection of this case is not a private master's death under the Hunting Law, but a plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is not legitimate, the court below's above error does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal on this point and the grounds of supplementary appeal cannot be accepted.

3. On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, the Buddhist law type of an incorporated association is an incorporated association established with the chief inspector, representative member, and general succession belonging to the type of law as the basic property (Articles 3, 5, 31 of the articles of incorporation), one chief director, seven directors, and two auditors as the chief director, and the chief director shall represent the corporation (Articles 14) and the class 12 of the Seoul Seongbuk-gu as the main property for the purpose of realizing the construction of Buddhist land through the public Buddhist movement, etc. aiming at the rule of law (Articles 10, 13 of the articles of incorporation). On the other hand, the board of directors consisting of the chief director (Articles 20, 22 of the records) and the chief director shall separately represent the corporation (Articles 123 through 141 of the articles of incorporation); the representative of the Buddhist law type of an incorporated association is one of the Buddhist organizations (Article 14 of the title); the chief director shall represent the class of the property (Article 14) and the class 25 of the indirect property management system; the class 12 of the central organization through prior approval.

Therefore, the court below explained as if the above two organizations were the same organization by judging the ownership of the properties of the legal category based on the basic properties of the non-legal category of the incorporated association. However, it is an expression to emphasize that the real estate of this case is not the ownership of the legal category itself. The real estate of this case is not the ownership of the legal category group because the above two organizations are different organizations, but it is not the ownership of the legal category group. The real estate of this case is the ownership of the inspection of this case itself, and the religious group can manage the real estate of this case indirectly through the management and supervision of the inspection. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is not legitimate because the two organizations are different organizations. The grounds for appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)