[1] In a case where a church files a lawsuit as an act of preserving its collective ownership property, whether it shall undergo a resolution of the general meeting of the members or undergo the procedure in accordance with the articles of incorporation (affirmative)

[2] Whether the act of assuming debt obligations that do not comply with the management and disposition of collective ownership property itself constitutes the management and disposition of collective ownership property under Article 275 of the Civil Code (negative)

[3] Whether the ratification of an invalid or unauthorized representation is implicitly possible (affirmative) and the requirements for the acknowledgement of implied ratification

[1] The provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of collective property cannot be applied to the preservation of collective property. Since the resolution of a general meeting of members under Article 276(1) of the Civil Act is passed or the articles of incorporation must be followed. Thus, even if a church which is not a juristic person files a lawsuit as an act of preserving collective property, it shall go through a resolution of the general meeting of the members or undergo procedures as stipulated by the articles of incorporation.

[2] Articles 275 and 276(1) of the Civil Act provide that the management and disposition of collective property shall be made in accordance with the articles of association or regulations, if there is any provision in the articles of association or regulations regarding the management and disposition of collective property, but it shall be made by a resolution of the general meeting of members unless otherwise prescribed by the articles of association or regulations. Thus, the management and disposition of collective property without following such procedures shall be null and void, and this legal principle applies mutatis mutandis to property rights other than ownership pursuant to Article 278 of the Civil Act. However, the management and disposition of collective property under the above Act refers to the act of using and improving collective property or the act of disposing of legal and private property, and thus, the act of assuming debt that does not comply with the management

[3] Ratification of invalidation or unauthorized representation is a single act with the knowledge of invalidation and the effect of invalidation, and it is not required to establish a certain method as to the method of declaration of intent. However, in order to recognize implied ratification, there should be circumstances to recognize that the person himself/herself has sufficiently understood the legal status of the act and, however, he/she should have recognized that the result of the act belongs to himself/herself.

[1] Articles 265 and 276(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 275, 276(1), and 278 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 130 and 139 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17062 Decided December 27, 2007 / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da6072, 60089 Decided April 19, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 693) Supreme Court Decision 201Da19522 Decided May 10, 2012 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37831 Decided September 24, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1747), Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8319, 83205 Decided February 10, 201 (Gong201Sang, 565)

The Korea Persons Association of the Korea Persons Association of the Korea Persons Association (Law Firm Sejongyang, Attorneys Park Byung-kick et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dong-gu Seoul Agricultural Cooperatives (Law Firm Democratic, Attorneys Yoon Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Future Savings Bank (Law Firm Han & Yang LLC, Attorneys Lee Ba-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na97272, 97289 decided October 31, 2012

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Dong Seoul Agricultural Cooperative are assessed against each party, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant Future Savings Bank are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

A. As to the ground of appeal against the Defendant Future Savings Bank

The provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of property jointly owned cannot be applied to the preservation of property jointly owned. Since the resolution of a general meeting of members under Article 276(1) of the Civil Act or the articles of incorporation shall be followed in accordance with the articles of incorporation. Thus, even in cases where a church which is not a juristic person files a lawsuit as an act of preserving property jointly owned by an association which is not a juristic person, a resolution of the general meeting of members or a procedure in accordance with the articles of incorporation shall be adopted (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17062 delivered on December 27, 2007

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment on the grounds that the resolution of the Plaintiff church on February 28, 2010 was merely a resolution to file a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the creation of the first place of the instant case, and that the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the creation of the creation of the creation of the second place of the instant case and the lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the creation of the third place of the instant case was cancelled

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant") filed a defense of safety with the purport that there was no legitimate resolution of the plaintiff church for the filing of the lawsuit in this case, and the defendant Future Savings Bank Co., Ltd. can be aware of the fact that all of the defendant, Dong-gu Seoul Agricultural Cooperative's defenses was invoked. Thus, the above part of the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the violation of the principle of pleading or the exercise of the right of explanation.

B. As to the grounds of appeal against the defendant Dongnam Agricultural Cooperative

Articles 275 and 276(1) of the Civil Act provide that the management and disposition of collective ownership shall be governed by the articles of incorporation or regulations, if any, and shall be governed by a resolution at a general meeting of members, unless otherwise prescribed by the articles of incorporation or regulations. Thus, the management and disposition of collective ownership without following such procedures shall be null and void, and this legal doctrine is applicable mutatis mutandis to property rights other than ownership pursuant to Article 278 of the Civil Act. However, the term "management and disposition of collective ownership" under the above Act refers to the act of using or improving the collective ownership itself or the act of disposing of legal and private performance thereof, and thus, the act of assuming obligations that do not comply with the management and disposition of collective ownership cannot be deemed an act of managing and disposing of collective ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Da19522, May 10, 2012; 2004Da6072, Apr. 19, 2007).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and the records, although the loan contract of this case was concluded in the same opportunity as the contract of the first mortgage, it is a legal act separate from the contract of the first mortgage, and its validity should be separately examined. The loan contract of this case is merely a simple act of bearing obligations that does not follow the management and disposition of the collective ownership itself, and it cannot be deemed a management and disposition of collective ownership as provided by Article 276 (1) of the Civil Act that requires the resolution of the general assembly of the plaintiff church. Since it does not constitute a resolution of the party meeting prescribed by the rules of the plaintiff church, the non-party cannot be deemed as null and void because it did not comply with the rules of the plaintiff church concerning the management and disposition of collective ownership while entering into the loan contract of this case. There is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles concerning the management and disposition of collective ownership, or by failing to exhaust all necessary

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant Dong Seoul Agricultural Cooperative

A. As to the first ground for appeal

The court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the 1st mortgage contract of this case is liable for the expression agency of the plaintiff under Article 126 of the Civil Code is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the 126th mortgage contract of this case, or in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the rules of logic and experience.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Ratification of an invalidation or an unauthorized representation is a single act with knowledge of the invalidation, etc. to vest the effect of such an act in his/her own, and it does not require a certain method with regard to the method of expressing his/her intent. However, in order to recognize an implied ratification, there must be circumstances to deem that the person himself/herself has sufficiently understood the legal status of the act in question and, however, recognized that the result of the act in question belongs to himself/herself based on his/her intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da37831, Sept. 24, 2009; 2010Da8319, 83205, Feb. 10, 2011).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, it is just for the court below to have rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff ratified the whole or part of the first mortgage contract of this case ex post, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to ratification of the first mortgage contract, or in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules

3. Conclusion

All appeals by the Plaintiff and the Defendant Seoul Special Agricultural Cooperative are dismissed, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Seoul Special Agricultural Cooperative are assessed against each party. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Future Savings Bank are assessed against the Plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)