[입후보등록무효등][공1992.9.1.(927),2377]
(a) The case holding that a claim seeking confirmation of the existence of entry, voting rights, etc. to the president of the subdivision during the term of office as the central subdivision of the Korea Buddhist Cho Jong-sung species is a claim for confirmation of existing legal relations with respect to the status of a member of the subdivision, and that if Gap did not enter and depart from the president and denied the status of encouragement by disciplinary action, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the status against the above end group;
(b) The case holding that if Gap's application for provisional disposition or lawsuit against the head of the rank or the head of the rank, etc. is not for promoting the will and impairing the legal system of the order, but for the disciplinary action against Gap, if Gap did not notify Gap of his attendance even though the disciplinary action against Gap was stipulated in the Family Relations Commission Act that the disciplinary action against the order shall be null and void
A. The case holding that the claim for confirmation that Gap, as a central chief commissioner of the Korean Buddhist Cho Jong-sung division, has a right to enter the central chief commissioner, a member's oath, a right to speak, a right to vote, and a right to be elected in various elections held by the central chief commissioner during his term of office, is a claim for confirmation of the existing legal relationship with the purport of seeking confirmation of status as a central chief commissioner, since all such rights are all derived from the status of the central chief commissioner, which eventually means a claim for confirmation of the status of the central chief commissioner, and in addition, if Gap denies the status of the central chief commissioner and did not have access to the meeting place, and if he denies the status of the class which is the premise of the central chief commissioner's qualification due to the disciplinary action of the bodily intelligence, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of status against the above chief commissioner
B. The case holding that Gap's application for the provisional disposition to suspend the performance of his duties or the lawsuit to confirm the appointment against the chief executive officer of the religious group to which he belongs did not meet the qualification requirements under the General Affairs Board Act; in particular, the chief executive officer is believed to have committed guidance rates, and it does not constitute spreading and manipulating the false facts of the infringing cryp in order to promote an individual's intent, and that Gap's application for the provisional disposition to suspend the validity of the cancellation of the registration of the central chief executive officer candidate for the above senior group against the above senior group, and that Gap's application for the provisional disposition to cancel the registration of the central chief executive officer candidate for the above senior group and to recognize the status as the central chief executive officer, so it does not lead to an inevitable act to protect his status and rights, and that it does not lead to the above act of cryping the defendant and the defendant's defendant's testimony during the meeting place, and if the defendant did not have an opportunity to deprive him of his opportunity to escape from his position and rights, it cannot be deemed as invalid.
(a) Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act;
[Judgment of the court below]
Attorney Kim Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant and one other
Seoul High Court Decision 90Na1122 delivered on April 4, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. On the first ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that although the plaintiff, who is a member of the defendant Order, was elected as the member of the 9th Central Council of the defendant Order, which was from September 1, 1988 to August 31, 1992, the term of office of the defendant Order, the chairman of the Central Council left the meeting without taking an oath as a member of the 9th Central Council, and the plaintiff was omitted in the list of members of the 5th Council and did not enter the meeting place due to the suspension of the general secretary's office, and that the plaintiff's act of filing a lawsuit against the non-party 1 and the chief of the 19th Office of the defendant Order, such as the defendant Order and the non-party 2 et al., the defendant Order failed to take the corrective procedure within the 198th Office of the 198th Office of the Central Council, which caused the plaintiff's denial of the status of the above 19th Office of the 198th Office.
In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is justified and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject matter of lawsuit and the interest of confirmation in the lawsuit for confirmation as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit.
2. On the second ground for appeal
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff's filing against the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2's filing of a provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties, such as the time of the original adjudication, or a lawsuit seeking nullification of appointment, did not meet the qualification requirements under the Standing Committee Act. In particular, the non-party 1's filing of a lawsuit for the purpose of correction without doubt as to the fact that the plaintiff committed the guidance rate, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's filing of a lawsuit against the defendant for provisional disposition suspending the registration of the chairman of the Central Committee, and the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit against the defendant for the suspension of the validity of the plaintiff's registration of the chairman of the Central Committee, and the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit against the defendant, without any basis under the final law, led to the plaintiff's rejection of the plaintiff's candidate registration and the status as the central council member, which led to unavoidable maintenance of his status and rights, and it does not seem to be justified as an act of disciplinary action against the defendant's testimony.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)