[1] Requirements for a temple to be an independent entity to be the subject of rights and obligations

[2] Whether an inspection shall be based on an agreement between the inspection and the final group in order for the inspection to belong to a specific final group (affirmative) / Whether the inspection to join a specific final group or to change its final group (affirmative), and the method of decision-making (=the method stipulated by the rules of the inspection itself)

[3] In a case where an inspection, of which it is unclear as to which a certain end group belongs, is registered with the competent authority by applying for registration of a specific end group pursuant to the former Buddhist Property Management Act, whether the inspection can be recognized as an inspection to which a specific end group belongs (affirmative in principle) / Where it is registered with the competent authority with the purport that the inspection belongs to a specific end group, but it is revealed that there are many circumstances to deem that the inspection does not have reached an agreement between the end group and the end group according to its registration as a result of autonomous decision-making

[1] In order for a temple to become an independent temple as an organization of the believers to declare the Buddhist church and be equipped with facilities for the Buddhist church, there is property of the Buddhist temple, such as the Buddhist church, which is a physical element, and there is a good faith, including the awareness that is a human element, and there is a need for the temple to carry out social activities with its own life ability with the rules as an organization.

[2] An independent temple, which is a subject of rights and obligations, may continue independently to exist, but it also belongs to a superior religious group composed of persons and organizations with a religious ideology, religious doctrine or religious interests. In order for a temple to belong to a specific religious group as an area of a contract under private law, the relationship between the temple and the specific religious group must be premised upon an agreement between the temple and the specific religious group. In addition, when the temple enters into an agreement on a specific religious group and the specific religious group, it shall be subject to the municipal ordinances and rules of the religious group, as it becomes the temple belonging to the specific religious group, and the religious constitution or the specific law of the religious group will result in significant changes in its status or authority, such as the right of the chief of the inspection belongs to the religious group, and in order for a specific inspection to join a specific religious group or change its affiliated religious group, the autonomous decision-making of the temple should be the basic premise. On the other hand, the method of self-decision-making of the inspection may not change whether it is a legal entity or at least a method of self-decision of the inspection.

[3] If a temple, which is unclear as to which a certain end group belongs, knew that it belongs to a specific end group pursuant to the former Buddhist Property Management Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda of the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act, Act No. 3974, Nov. 28, 1987; hereinafter the same shall apply), applied for the registration of a temple, and the registration was made following an examination of defects in the requirements of the competent authority, it may be recognized as a temple belonging to a specific end group, barring special circumstances. The submission of a report to the competent authority by a temple who files an application for registration pursuant to the former Buddhist Property Management Act may be deemed as a declaration of intention to externally indicate that the relevant temple agreed on the relationship between a specific end group and a specific end group that it intends to belong through autonomous decision-making.

However, as the temple becomes the subject of rights and obligations, the registration to the competent authority under the former Buddhist Property Management Act is not necessarily a requirement, and the registration to the competent authority under the former Buddhist Property Management Act does not result in changes in the civil rights or legal relations of the temple, or affect the substance of the temple, by itself, due to the registration to the competent authority under the former Buddhist Property Management Act. Even if a certain temple is registered to the competent authority with the purport that it is affiliated with a specific final group, it shall be recognized by accurately ascertaining what the final-class relationship is determined by the autonomous intention of the temple, and where many circumstances have been revealed to deem that the inspection does not have reached an agreement on the final-class relationship in accordance with the details of the registration to the competent authority under the former Buddhist Property Management Act, the final-class relationship of the temple should not be readily concluded solely on the basis of the details of registration to the competent authority under the former Buddhist Property Management Act.

[1] Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 31 and 105 of the Civil Act, Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 6 (see Article 4 of the current Traditional Temple Preservation and Support Act), Article 31 of the Civil Act, Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 9Da42179 delivered on January 30, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 530) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 81Nu42 delivered on February 23, 1982 (Gong1982, 388), Supreme Court Decision 89Da2902 delivered on October 10, 1989 (Gong1989, 163), Supreme Court Decision 96Da31468 delivered on June 13, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2144 delivered on April 16, 197), Supreme Court Decision 96Da76Da1123 delivered on April 12, 197, Supreme Court Decision 83Da434 delivered on December 27, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 98Da19849 delivered on September 29, 209; Supreme Court Decision 2005Da31984 delivered on December 295, 1982

Korean Buddhist Cho Jae-sung Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Jong-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ycheon-si (Law Firm Davia, Attorney Cho Dong-son, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee] ○○○○○○○ (Attorney Kim Young-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2014Na51264 Decided June 3, 2015

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. (a) Inspection means, as an unincorporated association and an unincorporated association equipped with facilities for Buddhist rites, to have the substance of an independent inspection as an independent association, property, such as Buddhist temples, which are physical elements, exist, as well as respect, including awareness as human factors, and requires inspections to carry out social activities with its own life power (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da42179 delivered on January 30, 201, etc.). An independent inspection which is an unincorporated association or foundation may independently continue to exist, but its independent inspection shall belong to the top-class association composed of persons with a religious ideology or religious interest. In order to have a specific inspection belonging to a specific area as an independent inspection, it shall be subject to an agreement between the inspection and the third-class inspection on the specific inspection (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da42179 delivered on January 30, 2001). On the other hand, it shall be subject to the premise that the inspection belongs to a specific type of inspection by its own decision-making method, such as its own decision-making method and its own decision-making method.

B. Unless there are special circumstances, a temple, who is unclear as to which a certain end group belongs, revealed that it belongs to a specific end group pursuant to the former Buddhist Temples Preservation Act (repealed by the Traditional Temples Preservation Act, Act No. 3974, Nov. 28, 1987; hereinafter the same shall apply) and filed an application for the registration of a temple, and where it has been registered after the examination of the requirements of the competent authority, it may be recognized as a temple belonging to a specific end group (see Supreme Court Decisions 76Da1123, Apr. 12, 197; 83Da434, Dec. 27, 1983; 88Nu4058, Feb. 25, 1992). The submission of an inspection to which an application for registration pursuant to the former Buddhist Property Management Act belongs to a specific end group can be seen as an autonomous agreement with the pertinent specific end group through its decision-making process.

C. However, the inspection does not necessarily require registration to the competent authority under the former Buddhist Property Management Act, when it becomes the subject of rights and obligations (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da12018, 12025, Jun. 12, 1992). Where the registration to the competent authority under the former Buddhist Property Management Act does not cause changes in the civil rights or legal relations of the inspection, or affect the substance of the inspection (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da41508, Sept. 26, 1995; 96Da36050, Nov. 8, 1996; 96Da36050, Nov. 8, 1996). Even if a inspection was registered with a competent authority that belongs to a specific final inspection, the inspection should not be accurately determined by the autonomous decision-making process of the inspection in accordance with the previous Buddhist Property Management Act, where it can be deemed that the inspection did not have reached an agreement on the last-class relationship with the competent authority.

2. Examining the following circumstances revealed through the reasoning and record of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, it appears that there are many circumstances to deem that such registration was not based on the autonomous decision-making process of the ○○○○○○○○○○○, a previous inspector, and the head of the competent authority under the former Non-Performing Property Management Act, even though the registration was completed under the jurisdiction of the Korea Non-Korean Buddhist Family Relations Adjustment Department. Rather, there appears to be room to view that the final decision-making by the ○○○○○

A. At the same time, ○○○, a previous inspector, enacted the rules of the inspection itself, appointed a chief minister in accordance with those rules, managed and operated the inspection. On the other hand, ○○○, a previous inspector, achieved alcoholic beverages of ○○○○○○.

B. Nonparty 1 left the ○○○ History from the 1950s on the side of the countermeasures. On the other hand, Nonparty 1 did not register Nonparty 1 as an inspector belonging to the ○○○ History as of December 4, 1962, even though Nonparty 1 was appointed as the chief inspector of the non-governmental group, it appears that Nonparty 1 was appointed as the chief inspector at the time of December 4, 1962. However, it is difficult to find out the circumstances that Nonparty 1 agreed between the Korea Non-indicted 1 and the Korea Non-indicted 1 as the inspector belonging to the Korea Non-indicted 1, or that the Korea Non-party 1 was appointed as the chief inspector on the premise of such agreement. Rather, even if Non-party 1 was appointed as the chief inspector of the non-governmental group of the Korea Non-indicted 1, it appears that the competent authority did not register as the inspector belonging to the non-governmental group of the Korea Non-indicted 1.

C. The inspection of ○○○○ was completed only on November 8, 1965. At the time, the inspection of ○○○○ was completed only on the ground of around November 8, 1965. Nonparty 2, who was appointed as the chief of ○○○○○○○ as the chief of ○○○○○○○. The inspection of ○○○○○ was highly likely to have been completed by Nonparty 2. However, whether Nonparty 2 was a legitimate representative entitled to the registration of the inspection of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was determined depending on whether the ○○○○○ was agreed to be affiliated with the Korea Buddhist○○○○○○○. In other words, if the ○○○○○○, who was the representative of Nonparty 1, agreed to be affiliated with the Korea Buddhist○○○○○○○○○○○○’s Nonindicted. 2, according to its own constitution or the final law, appointing Nonparty 2 as the latter. However, ○○○○ did not have any legitimate authority to appoint Nonparty 2.

D. When the Republic of Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-tae, which had been the main axis of ○○○ on January 15, 1970, was registered under the name of the Defendant joining the Defendant on October 13, 1970 as the temple to which ○○○○ was the Defendant. After December 8, 1971, ○○○ had completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s site for a religious site ( Address 1 omitted)” 26,731 square meters (which was under the name of “○○○○○○○○○○○○” on May 25, 1915) and completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant’s name on December 15, 1971, on the ground that the Plaintiff had completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of ○○○○○○○’s land under the name of ○○○○○○○ on the instant land.

E. The lower court affirmed the Plaintiff’s substance as an independent temple on the grounds that the Plaintiff was engaged in religious activities, such as Korean Buddhist Chocheon and Korean legal society, in accordance with the religious constitution and the religious law of the Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-chul, from around 1962 to around 1962, and that there was a good faith with the care of the Plaintiff. However, the circumstances cited by the lower court appear to be difficult to understand that there was insufficient consideration of the dispute surrounding ○○○○○○ History’s practical operating entity and form, etc. In other words, the head of the competent Si/Gun (the head of the competent Si/Gun) was appointed as an administrator pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Addenda of the Korea Buddhist Property Management Act on March 28, 1970 and was appointed as an Buddhist administrator pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Addenda of the Korea Buddhist Property Management Act until the dismissal of the Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-sung was made through the process of the appointment of the Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-tae and the appointment of the ○○ Cho Jong-sung.

3. A. If the above circumstances are as follows, ○○○○○○○○○○○, which was the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s “Korean Buddhist Cho Jong-tae,” which formed a relationship between the Korean Buddhist Buddhist type and the final group, and which is a separate temple, there is room for not to acknowledge the substance as a temple (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Nu4058, Feb. 25, 1992; 93Da3951, Sept. 26, 195).

B. If the Plaintiff’s inspection does not recognize an entity as a temple, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff has no capacity to be a party. However, the issue of party capacity shall be examined ex officio without the need to be bound by the allegations of the parties with respect to the facts constituting the premise for determining party capacity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Da257, 82Meu590, Jul. 12, 1983; 93Da5395, May 10, 1994). Therefore, the lower court determined whether the ○○○, a inspector of the past inspection, has reached an agreement between the Korea Buddhist Family and the Korea Buddhist Family in accordance with the autonomous decision-making, whether the ○○○○○○ was a representative duly appointed by the Korea Buddhist Family Department, whether the Korea Buddhist Family Department continuously appointed the Plaintiff as a representative of the ○○○○○ History while managing and operating the human resources and materials of the Plaintiff, and whether the Plaintiff affiliated with the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff’s independent ability to conduct religious activities within the scope of the Plaintiff.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court did not closely examine the circumstances that the Plaintiff registered with the competent authority pursuant to the former Buddhist Property Management Act and completed the registration of ownership preservation on the instant land, etc. on the grounds of the aforementioned circumstances, and determined that the Plaintiff was capable of being a party as an independent temple, without thoroughly examining other circumstances. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the capacity of the inspection, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)