A. Whether the judgment of the appellate court on the first instance judgment to be retired exceeds the limit of appeal and appeal

(b) Whether the representative of the temple has been registered but has not been appointed yet;

A. It is evident that the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the judgment of the court of first instance as the purport of appeal that is the cancellation of the judgment of the court of first instance and that is the same as the purport of the claim. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance that the court of first instance revokes the judgment of the court of first instance and that the case should be remanded to the court of first instance cannot be deemed to exceed the limit of the plaintiff's appeal.

B. Although the inspection of this case was operated by the winners of the countermeasures after the creation of the inspection of this case, even after the establishment of the inspection of this case was operated by the defendant (B) who was widely appointed by the end of the inspection of this case after the establishment of the inspection of this case, and even after the establishment of the inspection of the inspection of this case, the two parts of the non-permanent group were absorptiond, and since the inspection of this case was registered as the inspection of the non-permanent inspection of this case under the Non-permanent Inspection Act, the inspection of this case shall be the non-permanent organization of this case, and even if the plaintiff was appointed as the chief inspector of the inspection of the above inspection of this case and completed the registration of the inspection of this case, it shall be the legitimate representative of the inspection of this case even if he was not appointed as the chief inspector of the inspection of this case as the non-permanent inspection

A. Articles 388 and 385 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 48 of the Act; Article 9 of the Non-School Property Management Act;

Masters;

[Defendant-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 83Da579 delivered on June 21, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the records, it is evident that the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance as the purport of appeal and the judgment, such as the cancellation of the judgment of the first instance as the purport of appeal and the entry of the purport of the claim. Meanwhile, in case where the court of appeals revokes the judgment of the first instance which dismissed the lawsuit on account of its illegality pursuant to Article 388 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court of appeals should remand the case to the court of first instance, so it cannot be said that the judgment of the court of first instance which remanded the case to the court of first instance exceeds the limit of the plaintiff's objection, and therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment of the court of first instance which remanded the case to

With respect to the second point, the judgment of the court below, in short, has interpreted contrary to the Supreme Court precedents on the ability and representative of the temple.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the above Buddhist temple was not established by the non-party's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's second-class inspector's first-class inspector's second-class inspector's first-class inspector's second-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's second-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's second-class inspector's first-class inspector's second-class inspector's first-class inspector's second-class inspector's first-class inspector's second-class inspector's second-class inspector's first-class inspector's first-class inspector's second-class inspector's first-class inspector's second-class inspector's second-class inspector's second-class inspector's first-class.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost them. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)