Representative c

2. C

3. D;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

of this section.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 12, Gap evidence 20, Eul evidence 1 through 4:

A. Status of the parties

From around 1989, the Plaintiff was a new person of Defendant B’s clothes (title B before the alteration; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant church”); Defendant C is the representative of the Defendant church and the head of the Defendant church; Defendant D is the head of the Defendant church.

B. On November 2, 1987, the Plaintiff was employed in EA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EA”) and was working as an additional note and was not promoted to the captain. As such, the Plaintiff submitted a resignation letter around January 6, 199 and the said resignation was accepted and retired on the 31st of the same month.

2) On August 22, 2001, a judgment against the plaintiff was finalized against the plaintiff, and on April 25, 2003, the lawsuit filed against the chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission for the cancellation of the adjudication on the remedy for unfair dismissal filed against the plaintiff was finalized, and the lawsuit filed against the plaintiff was also finalized on March 9, 2004 against the plaintiff on the ground of unfair dismissal filed against the E aviation and the country.

3) From March 2002 to March 2003, the Plaintiff damaged the honor of the E aviation by distributing printed materials containing false facts, such as “the Plaintiff has employed an unqualified pilot for over 30 years,” or by conducting one person’s demonstration using advertising board, etc., and by sending several letters to the persons related to the EA, etc. a letter to the effect of demanding compensation from the persons related to the EA, or by threatening them to threaten them or withdraw money and valuables, but was attempted to do so, the Plaintiff was sentenced to suspension of 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year, and probation and community service order, and became final and conclusive on July 27, 2006.

4) The Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea on May 18, 2006. On November 2006, 2006, the Plaintiff returned to Korea on January 201, 2010 without being recognized as a refugee even though the Plaintiff applied for refugee status to Canada.

5) The Plaintiff refused to comply with the probation of the criminal judgment and the execution of the community service order as stated in the above 3) and thus revoked the suspension of the execution of the above imprisonment. The Plaintiff served in prison from January 201 to November 201, and completed the execution of the above imprisonment.

6) The Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea on May 18, 2006 and did not attend the Defendant church until the time when the enforcement of the sentence was completed on November 201, 2010.

C. As to whether to recognize the believers of the defendant church as to the persons attending the defendant church, the defendant C and D individually determine the relevant believers based on their gender, and there is no rules or regulations for the operation of a separate church and the management of the new church. For the following reasons, on May 2, 2012, the defendant church passed a resolution to confirm that the plaintiff is not the new church of the defendant church (hereinafter referred to as the "resolution of this case") with the consent of 41 among the 46 registered believers for the following reasons. (1) The plaintiff was not present at the defendant church for four years after May 2006, the plaintiff did not attend the defendant church for four years after 2006.)

The previous Do did not contribute money, etc.

3) During the trial as described in the above B. B., it was revealed that the Plaintiff had performed a job that could not have been remarkably done if the Plaintiff was a believers of the G.D.

4) The motive of the Plaintiff’s attempt to return to the Defendant church is to remove, criticize and damage the Defendant church.

D. The major properties of the Defendant church, which are the church building and the site of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○○○○○○○○○○ and the 5th floor building on its ground (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate by combining the above land and buildings”), are registered as the collective ownership of the members of the Defendant church or as the collective ownership of the Defendant C and D.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is also disqualified from the trust of the defendant church and sought confirmation from the defendant that the plaintiff is qualified as the trust of the defendant church.

A. Before leaving the Republic of Korea on May 18, 2006, the Plaintiff maintained the qualification of the Plaintiff as a believers of the Defendant church, such as being present at the designated seat of the distribution of weddings, and continued religious life by attending the local church following the movement of the Defendant church in Canada.

B. The Plaintiff started attending the Defendant church after returning to Korea, and raised objections to the interpretation of the religious doctrine or faith of Defendant C and D, or criticism as to the registration of the property of Defendant C and D as the joint property of Defendant C and D, and demanded the said Defendants to return the property title to the Defendant church.

C. On May 18, 2006, the above Defendants denied the Plaintiff’s qualification as a believers by asserting that the Plaintiff voluntarily dispatched from the Defendant church upon the passage of three months or more without attending the assembly of the Defendant church, and forced the Plaintiff to attend the worship in the outside person, not the new seat, and the instant resolution was adopted on May 2, 2012 by asserting that it was in accordance with the recommendation of the previous full bench.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

As religious activities are guaranteed by the constitutional freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion, the court, a state agency, should ensure the autonomy of the pertinent religious organization to the maximum extent possible by failing to conduct substantive hearings and make decisions, in principle, as long as matters concerning the internal relations of the religious organization are not regulated by the rights and obligations or legal relations of the general public. Meanwhile, imposing sanctions on a person who has misconduct as a member of the religious organization in order to establish the doctrine of religious organization and maintain the order of religious organization and religious affairs through a religious method constitutes the territory of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, as a regulation inside the religious organization. In light of the dispute over the specific rights and legal relations of the members, the legitimacy of disciplinary action against the members of the religious organization cannot be determined by the court itself as the subject matter of judicial review (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32386, Oct. 27, 201).

On the other hand, as long as a church exists as an association which is not a juristic person, the general theory of the Civil Code concerning an association which is not a juristic person is to settle disputes over its legal relations in a litigation

It shall be determined whether the church properties belong to the entity and the members thereof shall jointly own the church properties and use them and gain profit from them (see Supreme Court Order 2007Ma224, Jun. 29, 2007, etc.). A lawsuit concerning collective property may be filed in the form of indispensable co-litigation either by an association which is not a juristic person, through a resolution of a general members' meeting in its name, or by becoming the whole members thereof, or by becoming the whole members thereof, and even if the members of the association are the representative of the association or by a resolution of the general members' meeting, they cannot become the party to the lawsuit, and this legal principle shall also apply to a lawsuit concerning the preservation of collective property (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Ma224, Jun. 29, 2005).

15. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da44971 decided Feb. 1, 2004

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to see that there is no dispute over the ownership of the property of Defendant C and D, since it is an association that is not a juristic person, to file a lawsuit for the cancellation of title trust and the registration for cancellation of registration of transfer of ownership on the real estate of this case, ① the resolution of the general meeting regarding the lawsuit concerning the property relations of an association that is not a juristic person, such as Defendant church, respect the autonomy within the association that is not a juristic person, especially the religious organization, in principle, by failing to make substantive deliberation and decision, in principle, the court has to guarantee the autonomy of the religious organization concerned as much as possible. ② Since there is no dispute between the parties as to the ownership of the real estate of this case, the registration of the joint ownership in the name of Defendant C and D is deemed to have been registered with the trust of the members of Defendant church. ③ Since the defendant church is an association that is not a juristic person, it cannot be seen that there is any specific legal dispute over the ownership of the property of Defendant church in this case, the plaintiff's new church cannot be seen as an infringement of the freedom of Defendant church.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus all of it is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all of the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Dokwon Line

Judges Lee Jin-hee