Ownership of property made by collecting revenues for the Si or inspection of the new Do;

Property acquired by new owners of the cities or other revenues for the inspection shall become the joint property of the believers belonging to the inspection for the maintenance and management of the inspection, regardless of how the name of the owner is, unless there is a special reason, and therefore, the relationship between the registrant and the new owner is merely merely a title trust, and if there is no agreement stipulated in the meeting or inspection itself, the exercise of the right to such property shall follow the resolution of the general meeting of the new owners.

Articles 271 and 272 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da2892, 2893 delivered on February 10, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 4383 delivered on April 10, 197, Supreme Court Decision 18DaDa58 delivered on June 18, 199, Supreme Court Decision 271Da323 delivered on August 27, 1959 (Supreme Court Decision 6910 delivered on June 6910, and Article 271(3)346 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Legal Institute:

Daegu District Court of the first instance (73 Gohap974)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment is revoked. The defendant ordered the plaintiff to 17 land of 108, 408, 109, 109, 109, 17, 109, 22, 6, 6, and 500 won per month from February 16, 1973 to the completion of the above name limit. The defendant will pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 50,000 won per month from February 16, 1973 to the above name limit. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant through 1 and 2, and provisional execution declaration.

The fact that the defendant temple occupies and uses the land and building stated in the purport of the claim, and the fact that the ownership transfer registration (However, the above building has been made on the ground of the same 408-2 as that on the register before the partition) has been made under the plaintiff's ownership does not conflict between the parties.

Defendant’s attorney first, each of the above real estate was jointly purchased and donated to the Defendant, including Nonparty 1 who is the chief of the Defendant’s temple, and even if not, the Defendant later reported it to the Defendant’s inspection property pursuant to the Non-Performing Property Management Act, and the Plaintiff, despite the ownership of the Defendant, forged a document to the fact that the Plaintiff was the chief of the inspection team, and subsequently completed the registration of ownership transfer in his front. Thus, the above registration is null and void. However, it is difficult to believe that some of the testimony portion of Non-Party 2 of the lower court’s witness or evidence Nos. 9-2, 5-2, etc. are written on the part of Non-Party 2’s testimony or evidence No. 9-2, 9-5, etc., which correspond thereto, there is no evidence to recognize that the Plaintiff, who is the Defendant’s ownership, has forged the document and reported it to the Defendant as the inspection property pursuant to the Non-Performing Property Management Act, and thus

However, considering the whole purport of the parties' arguments as to Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 3 (the same shall apply to Gap evidence 10-1), Eul evidence 9-1, and Eul evidence 9-4, without dispute over the establishment of the inspection, the real estate of this case is discussed as to the construction of the defendant's inspection as the main reasons for the plaintiff's non-party 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, such as the plaintiff from among the e-mails of the Gu newsletter at the time of May 1958, and it was decided that the above building and the site were purchased two times from the time of the purchase of the above building and the above site were used for the defendant's inspection as the law of the inspection and the building site, and it was still used until now by the plaintiff's new inspection's new property or new property's new property's new property's new property's ownership without any new property's new property's ownership or new property's new property's ownership without any reason for the plaintiff's new property's ownership or new property's new property.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is based on the premise that the plaintiff's ownership of this case is the plaintiff's and the defendant's temple occupies it without title, shall be dismissed because there is no need to examine the remaining arguments, and it is not necessary to do so. Thus, the original judgment is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal against this case is without merit, and therefore, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to

Judges Seole Hong (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)