담임목사지위 부존재 확인 등
All appeals are dismissed.
Plaintiff
The costs of appeal between a church and the defendant are indicated as the representative of the plaintiff church.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the lower court, citing the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, rejected the Plaintiff church’s assertion that the resolution to dismiss the Defendant from the delegate pastor of the Plaintiff church constitutes a resolution to dismiss the Defendant by the new voting of the members for whom the constitution of the religious order or the implementation rules of the Constitution explicitly prohibit the Plaintiff church, and that the resolution to dismiss the Defendant from the delegate pastor of the Plaintiff church constitutes a resolution to dismiss the Defendant by the new voting of the members for whom the constitution of the religious order or the implementation rules of the Constitution explicitly prohibit the religious order, and that the resolution to dismiss the pastor is null and void because it violates the constitution and the implementation rules of the religious
The gist of this part of the grounds of appeal is that there is no provision prohibiting the removal of pastors from the constitution of a religious order, and Article 26 (7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Constitution does not apply to the illegal provisions that are not stipulated by the constitution of a religious order or to the plaintiff church, and that it would infringe on the independence of a branch church or the essence of the religious freedom.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in understanding the meaning of the religious order constitution and the implementation rules, or in misapprehending the legal principles as to the effect of the implementation rules of the Constitution, the independence of
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, even if the judgment citing all the claims of the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff church, is relatively limited to the remaining plaintiffs who are parties to the lawsuit and the defendant, and does not extend to the third parties, such as