The effects of borrowing money by a temple without permission from the competent authorities;

When borrowing money within the limits of the budget for the operation of inspection, it shall be subject to permission from the competent authorities unless it is a temporary loan which shall be repaid with the revenue of the relevant fiscal year, and if it is not permitted, it shall not be effective to borrow money for inspection.

Article 11 of the Buddhist Property Management Act

November 30, 1971 71Da1166 decided Nov. 30, 197 (Article 11(17) 1053 Ka989 decided Nov. 122, 197

Defendant 1 and 1 other

The defendant temple of the head office of the Dong-gu, 22 of the Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-sung;

Gwangju District Court Decision 84Gahap119 delivered on May 2, 1984

1. The decision subject to review shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff (the defendant)'s claim is all dismissed.

3. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff (the defendant for retrial).

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) Main claim: The defendant (the defendant hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") shall have an amount of KRW 85,00,000 from January 19, 1983 to KRW 30,000 from among them, for KRW 15,000 from February 12, 1983 to KRW 10,000; for KRW 10,000 from March 3, 1983 to KRW 30,000,00 from March 25, 1983 to the full payment system; for KRW 30,000 from March 25, 1983 to the date of each full payment; for KRW 44,00,000 to KRW 24,00,00 from KRW 20 to KRW 15,00,00 from KRW 10 to KRW 18,50,00; and for KRW 10,00 from KRW 10 to KRW 18,508,00.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

(2) Preliminary Claim: The Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 85,00,000, KRW 44,000 to Plaintiff 2, and an amount of KRW 25,00,000 per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the completion of the instant complaint.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Grounds for a retrial

On February 20, 1984, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of claims against the defendant who was known to the representative of the non-party 1 (number omitted) with 84 trillion won and the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was rendered on May 2, 198, and the above judgment became final and conclusive at the time of appeal due to the Domination of the appeal period. Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 13, Eul evidence No. 13-1,4 (mail delivery report), Eul evidence No. 22-1, 3 (decision), and 48 (decision No. 1, No. 1, No. 298), and the defendant's testimony was not known to the non-party 1, who had been appointed to the non-party 4 as the defendant's representative at the time of the above judgment's dismissal of the non-party 1, and the defendant's testimony was not known to the court.

According to the above facts, it is evident that Nonparty 1 is not the representative of the defendant at the time of the filing of the instant judgment subject to a retrial (the plaintiff's assertion that the representation is constituted even if the plaintiff was ex officio, but cannot serve as a reason). Thus, this constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the merits

(1) We examine the primary claim.

If Gap evidence Nos. 8 (Account Statement of Claim for Lending) which is approved by the testimony of the witness non-party 1 and the above witness gather together with the whole purport of the pleading, the plaintiff 1 may recognize the fact that the plaintiff 1 lent 85,00,000 won to the defendant four times from January 19, 1983 to March 25 of the same year, and the plaintiff 2 lent 44,00,000 won per annum to the defendant on May 15, 1983 and June 4 of the same year.

However, according to the provisions of Article 11 (1) 3 of the Buddhist Property Management Act, when borrowing money within the limits of its budget for the operation of inspection, it is required to obtain permission from the competent agency, unless it is a temporary loan from the revenue within the pertinent fiscal year (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da1166, Nov. 30, 1971). If the above statements of No. 21 and the witness 21 and the witness 21 are collected from the testimony of Non-Party 1, then the above money is not a temporary loan to be repaid with the revenue within the pertinent fiscal year of the Defendant’s inspection, and the defendant’s inspection is not a fact that the above money is not a temporary loan to be repaid with the revenue within the pertinent fiscal year of the Defendant’s inspection, and there is no other material to see otherwise, therefore, the above money is not effective against the defendant.

(2) We examine the conjunctive claim.

The plaintiffs alleged that the non-party 1, who was known at the time of the defendant's negligence of ordinary supervision, made a false statement as if he had obtained the approval of the supervisory authority, and as seen above, the plaintiff 1 borrowed the total amount of KRW 85,000,000 from the plaintiff 2, thereby causing damages to the same amount, and thus, the defendant, who is the employer of the above non-party, is liable to compensate the above damages to the plaintiffs. Thus, the non-party 1, as to whether the non-party 1 committed a tort as alleged by the plaintiff, is a health stand, part of the witness corresponding thereto, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the testimony of the most uniform was not reliable and there is no other evidence to prove that the above tort was committed, it is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the litigation of this case is clear that there is a ground for retrial, and thus, the judgment for retrial is revoked, and all of the claims of this case are without merit, and the litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost both the merits and the retrial, and they are so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Gangnam-gu (Presiding Judge) Lee Jong-soo Kim