Where it is deemed that it is the representative of inspection, even if any defect is found in the procedure that was not completed by the competent agency.

If an application was rejected by the competent agency on the ground of the fact that the application was filed by the competent agency after being notified of appointment from the final decision of the Korean Buddhist type of inspection, but the competent agency rejected the application on the ground of the fact that the case was surrounding the inspection, the person who was defective in the procedure that was not completed the registration of the chief appointment to the competent agency is the chief of the inspection.

Article 9 of the Buddhist Property Management Act

Dr. Dr. Blue Dr. Blue Dr.

Defendant

Busan District Court Jinju Branch (79 Gohap153)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant, Samcheon-si, Dong-dong 459-2, 460 Gamen's 460 Gamen's Gamen's coap per unit, 1, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 6, 8, 5, 5, 7, 1, 1, 27, 27, 5, 1, 5, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 2, and 5,2, and 5,2,000.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

Thus, the defendant's defense that the non-party 1 is not the representative of the plaintiff's temple. Thus, since the non-party 1's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 13-1 and 13-2 without dispute over the establishment of the plaintiff's association, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 1-3, and 7, which are presumed to have been authenticity by the non-party 2's testimony, and which are acknowledged to have been authenticity by the whole purport of the pleading, are gathered in the whole purport of the pleading, the non-party 2 and 3's testimony and arguments of the court below's witness Nos. 2 and 3, and the non-party 4 did not have any dispute over the above fact-finding Nos. 1, 5,000, the non-party 5 was appointed as the representative of the plaintiff's temple, and the non-party 1's above fact-finding on Oct. 4, 1974, he did not accept the above fact-finding No. 15, the plaintiff 14.

The defendant and the non-party 5 asserted that the above building was purchased from the non-party 6 and completed the registration of ownership preservation in trust with the plaintiff. However, according to the testimony of the non-party 7 and 8 of the witness of the court below and the non-party 9 of the trial witness non-party 9, the defendant and the non-party 5 of his husband, who purchased the secret of this case from the non-party 6 with the thickness of July 1974 and purchased the secret of this case in new construction and reconstruction of the above building, and there is no counter-proof evidence to prove that the above registration of ownership preservation was made with the intention of the title trust, the above non-party 9's remaining testimony is not believed.

Therefore, the defendant has a right to occupy and use the above building differently, and the defendant has a duty to order the plaintiff to order the above building. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified, and the judgment of the court below is just and without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost.

Judges Han Jae-young (Presiding Judge)