소유권확인
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to review, are apparent in records or significant to the court:
C Educational Association (hereinafter referred to as the “instant church”) is the owner of each real estate listed in the attached list 1, and belongs to the FEU under the general assembly of D Religious Organizations E. However, due to the reflection among the members, some of the members decided to move to a different religious order on February 9, 2003 to join the Hao’s Council under the D Religious Organization G general assembly (hereinafter referred to as the “instant resolution”) and operated as the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”), and separately from the Plaintiff’s members opposing the religious order change, they became to operate a religious activity and a church.
B. On the premise that the Defendant is a church that is identical or has no substance with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff sought confirmation on the ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the registration of which was completed under the name of the instant church, and sought confirmation on whether the Defendant did not have a resolution listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for confirmation of ownership (Seoul District Court 2016Gadan7847). On January 17, 2017, the Jeonju District Court decided that the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation did not have any interest in confirmation, and that the Plaintiff’s decision was dismissed, on the ground that the members who dissent from the religious order change collectively withdraw from the instant church and establish the Plaintiff church that is a separate church.
C. The Plaintiff appealed (former District Court 2017Na950), and the Jeonju District Court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 27, 2017 (hereinafter “the subject judgment on review”). The original judgment subject to review was served on the Plaintiff on October 10, 2017.
On October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against a judgment subject to a retrial (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da275072), and the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal on January 11, 2018 due to the non-trial conduct, thereby rendering the judgment subject to a retrial on January 15, 2018.