beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit
A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff filed a claim for the prohibition of passage on the ground that the defendant, who is the temple, passes over part of the area of 1455 square meters prior to C before C at the time of residence on his/her own, without permission. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful on the ground that the defendant is not a juristic person, but has no substance as
B. Article 48 of the Civil Procedure Act recognizes the capacity of a non-corporate association as a party to a lawsuit is not a juristic person but for a juristic person to have an entity as an association and to conduct social activities or transactions through its representative or manager, disputes arising therefrom are to be settled by the organization as a party to the lawsuit in its own name. Thus, the term "association" refers to a group of multiple persons organized for a certain purpose, with a provision regarding an organization externally representing an association, and a non-corporate body has the capacity of a party to the lawsuit requirements and should be determined as of the date of closing argument in the fact-finding court.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da18547, Dec. 9, 1997). In order for a temple to be deemed to have the substance as an independent temple as an organization of believers, it is necessary for a temple to carry out social activities with its own life-bearingness with its own bylaws. In order for the temple to be deemed to have the substance as an independent temple as an organization of believers, it is necessary to possess the temple property, such as the Buddhist church, which is a physical element, such as the awareness as a human element. There is a large number of believers, including the awareness as a human element.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da42179, Jan. 30, 2001). In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant did not have any evidence to prove that the Defendant is a legal entity, as well as the statement in subparagraphs 6-1 and 2, as the Defendant’s non-legal entity.