주지임명무효확인 및 주지부존재확인의 소
1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the plaintiff's claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the court changed to "a person who completed the 4th 12th th th 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance"; (b) subsequent to the 11th 15th 15th 15th 15th 2th 3th 3th 3th 3th 2006, the plaintiff A's claim added in the court of first instance is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it
2. As to the additional part 2, the plaintiffs: (a) the resolution of February 20, 199 to withdraw from Defendant H is merely the withdrawal of Defendant H from Defendant H; (b) the plaintiffs have been engaged in a peaceful religious life in Defendant H from 2007 to Defendant H; (c) the series of acts by the plaintiffs around 2007 are merely the self-help of I's deprivation; and (d) the above R cannot be deemed as a separate entity from Defendant H in the related case; and (e) in the related case, the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have withdrawn from Defendant H on the premise that the plaintiffs' claim for abandonment against other related cases was lawful.
① We examine the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the above.
A resolution to move to a different religious order that some of the members leave the religious order and move to another religious order is a concept different from collective withdrawal of the previous church, and whether some of the members can be evaluated to have withdrawn from the previous church shall be comprehensively considered in accordance with the general principles of interpretation of juristic acts.