(b) The case holding that the lawsuit claiming the preservation of ownership, which is instituted by the representative of a church for the preservation of church property, is unlawful only by a resolution of a joint meeting corresponding to the general meeting of members;

(b) The case holding that the lawsuit claiming the preservation of ownership, which is instituted by the representative of a church for the preservation of church property, is unlawful only by a resolution of a joint meeting corresponding to the general meeting of the members;

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the lawsuit of this case on March 9, 192, on the ground that the plaintiff church opened a removal council on the ground that the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed in violation of the intention of the majority of the members, and recognized the fact that the plaintiff church would bring the lawsuit of this case and delegated all of its authority to the non-party. Accordingly, the above non-party is entitled to bring the lawsuit of this case as the representative of the plaintiff church.

However, the provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of property jointly owned cannot be applied to the preservation of property jointly owned. Barring special circumstances, a resolution of a general meeting of members under Article 276(1) of the Civil Act shall be passed unless there are special circumstances, such as that the church, which is a non-corporate group, with the representative's act of preserving property jointly owned, conducts legal acts under the name of the representative, as the act of preserving the property jointly owned (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu6, Sep. 23, 196).

Therefore, in order to legally file a lawsuit only with the resolution of the board of directors of a plaintiff church as recognized by the court below, there should be special provisions on the resolution of the board of directors of the plaintiff church. Furthermore, when examining the rules of the plaintiff church (the evidence No. 2-1 of the plaintiff church), the council of the plaintiff church has the authority to decide on the overall policies and policies of the church and the rules of the plaintiff church, but with respect to each of its authority, the council provides that "the council of the parties shall decide on the overall policies and policies of the church, the authority and rules, the appointment of the church, the deliberation of the deceased, the appointment and the appointment of the deceased, the deliberation of the opinion, the unconstitutional policy and the time of the contribution, and each department shall guide each of the departments." The council of the plaintiff church shall research, revise and implement all the religious affairs or the administrative affairs of the church (Article 7 (2) and (3) of the rules), since the council of the plaintiff church shall cooperate in cooperation with the church of the church and shall not legally stipulate the rules No. 15 of the church members, "the resolution of the church's."

Therefore, in this case where there is no other evidence to support that the representative of the plaintiff church had a resolution of the general meeting of the members of the plaintiff church in filing the lawsuit in this case, the court below's rejection of the defendants' main defense for the above reasons is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the act of preserving collective ownership, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground for

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)