[1] The nature and capacity of a non-corporate group during the liquidation

[2] The case holding that even if a church sold a building to another church and dissolved because it did not conduct any religious activity, as long as the members dispute the ownership relationship of the church's properties, the church shall be the subject of rights and obligations within the scope of the purpose of liquidation, and the above members shall be entitled to seek confirmation of the non-existence of the status of a liquidator

[3] Whether there is a benefit in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of representative status in relation to the management and disposal of church properties

[1] Even if a non-corporate company caused a cause for dissolution, it shall not immediately extinguish the party ability, but shall be the subject of rights and obligations within the scope of the purpose of liquidation until the liquidation work is completed. In this case, the non-corporate company in the process of liquidation is an association identical to the non-corporate company in the process of dissolution, and its purpose shall not be reduced within the scope of liquidation.

[2] The case holding that even if a church sold a building to another church and dissolved because it did not conduct any religious activity, as long as the members dispute the ownership relationship of the church's properties, the church shall be the subject of rights and obligations within the scope of the purpose of liquidation, and the above members shall be deemed to have the purport of seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the status of a liquidator in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of the status of a representative of

[3] Unless there are special circumstances such as stipulated otherwise in the constitution of a church, etc., the representative of a church (contestator) has the power of representation concerning the management and disposition of church properties while holding concurrently the status of the representative of a non-corporate association as well as the status of the representative of a non-corporate association that presides over the worship and religious activities. Therefore, a dispute over the status of the representative of a church in relation to the management and disposition of the properties constitutes a dispute over specific rights or legal relations and seeking confirmation of

[1] Articles 77, 81, and 82 of the Civil Act; Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 77, 81, and 82 of the Civil Act; Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 52 and 250 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Meu25895 Decided December 7, 1990 (Gong1991, 443) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da32687 Decided November 14, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2325) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da10388 Decided June 24, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1254)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Ham, Attorney Kang Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant church (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na2836 decided May 18, 2006

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The first instance court acknowledged the fact that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in this case seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the status of the representative of the non-party's defendant church by asserting that the non-party is no longer the representative of the defendant church after being subject to the disciplinary action of the non-party who was the member of the defendant church from the Tribunal of the Seoul District General Assembly of the Korea Egyptian Society, and that the defendant church did not engage in religious activities any longer after the defendant church sold the church building to another church on May 2005, when the number of its adopted evidences has been reduced to less than 10 persons, and determined that the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, since the defendant church had already been dissolved and has no ability to do so,

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below and the first instance court for the following reasons.

A. Even if a non-corporate company caused a cause for dissolution, it shall not immediately extinguish the party ability, but shall be the subject of rights and obligations within the scope of the purpose of liquidation until the liquidation is completed (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da32687, Nov. 14, 2003, etc.). In such case, the non-corporate company in the course of liquidation is the same association as the non-corporate company in the previous dissolution, but its purpose shall not be reduced within the scope of liquidation.

As recognized in the first instance court, even if the defendant church was dissolved because it sells the church building to another church and does not engage in any religious activity, the plaintiffs who were in the status of the members of the defendant church dispute about the ownership of the church's properties, and otherwise there is no evidence to deem that the liquidation of the church's properties, including the sale of the church building, has been completed, the liquidation affairs of the defendant church shall not be completed, so the defendant church shall be the subject of rights and obligations within the scope of the purpose of liquidation and shall be the party ability. In addition, in the course of liquidation, the defendant church shall be a non-corporate body identical to the defendant church before dissolution and its purpose has been reduced within the scope of liquidation. Therefore, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of the status of the representative of the defendant church, the purport of seeking confirmation of the absence of the status of the representative of the defendant church, that is, the representative of the defendant church during liquidation, is naturally included

Nevertheless, the court below and the court of first instance judged the lawsuit of this case as unlawful on the grounds that the defendant church had already been dissolved and the defendant church had no capacity to be a party. Thus, the court below and the court of first instance erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the party ability of the non-corporate association before and after dissolution, which affected

B. On the other hand, unless there are special circumstances such as the provisions on the church's constitution, etc., the representative of a church (including a member of a church) shall have the power of representation concerning the management and disposal of church properties while holding concurrently the status of the representative of a non-corporate association as well as the status of the representative of a non-corporate association who presides over the worship and religious activities. Therefore, the dispute over the status of the representative of a church in relation to the management and disposal of the properties constitutes a dispute over specific rights or legal relations and seeking confirmation

According to the records, the lawsuit of this case can be seen as seeking confirmation of whether the non-party is a representative (Liquidators) in relation to the management and disposal of the property of the defendant church, and therefore, there is a benefit in the lawsuit of this case. Furthermore, as alleged by the plaintiffs, if several legal relations are formed on the premise that the non-party is a legitimate representative of the defendant church, and if there is a possibility that new legal relations are formed, it can expect a direct and uniform resolution of the non-party to seek confirmation of the existence of the status of the representative of the defendant church of the non-party who is the source of the dispute before individually resolving the legal relations. Thus, the lawsuit of this case cannot be deemed as a valid and appropriate means. The decision of the court below that

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed. Since the Supreme Court is sufficient to directly render a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the case is remanded to the court of first instance for a new trial and determination pursuant to the main sentence of Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)