1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, on July 20, 2014 and July 28, 2014, each resolution of the Joint Council held by the Defendant as the chairman of the Joint Council, which is the Plaintiff’s decision-making body, is inappropriate as having not gone through due process, and that the contents of the resolution are also invalid as they are contrary to the constitution of the religious order and the decision of provisional disposition by the court.

2. In a lawsuit for confirmation of the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case, the benefit of confirmation is required as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger. Thus, in a lawsuit for confirmation, a person who causes or is likely to cause apprehension and danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status, shall be qualified as the Defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68650, 68667, Feb. 9, 2007). In the instant case, even if the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of invalidity of the resolution against the Defendant, an individual, as asserted by the Plaintiff, it cannot be the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s anxiety or risk (the Plaintiff may hold a joint council again and make another resolution at any time). The instant lawsuit against the Defendant, which is against the Defendant, who is not an interest in confirmation, is against a non-qualified person, and thus, is unlawful.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.