[1] Method of disposing of church properties

[2] Whether Article 126 of the Civil Code applies mutatis mutandis to a church's representative's act of disposing of church properties without a resolution of the general meeting of members (negative)

[1] In the case of a church that is an organization of the German members, the property, which is composed of the members' annual report, the donation of money, and the earnings of a church belongs to the collective ownership of the members of the church, unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, in the event that the disposal of the property is carried out by the articles of association or other regulations of the church or otherwise, the

[2] The representative of a church, which is not a non-corporate association, shall not be authorized to act on behalf of the members without going through a resolution of the general assembly of the members concerning the disposal of the properties of the church which are collectively owned by the representative of a church. The provisions concerning the representation of expression under Article 126 of the Civil Code shall not apply mutatis mutandis to the disposal of the properties

[1] Articles 275 and 276 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 126, 275, and 276 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 80Da2045, 2046 decided Dec. 9, 1980 (Gong1981, 13461) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da57679 decided Feb. 8, 2002

Plaintiff

Defendant church

Daegu District Court Decision 2005Na7847 Decided March 24, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion for completion of prescriptive acquisition

If possessory right is acquired through inheritance, the inheritor may not assert his own possession regardless of the possession of the inheritee, unless he starts his own possession with a new title (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da22651, Feb. 10, 1995). In addition, in the case of the prescription for the acquisition of real estate, the starting point of the period is the starting point of the possession, which serves as the basis of the prescriptive acquisition, in principle, the starting point of the period is the starting point of the acquisition, and the parties may not choose it at will. In addition, in a case where a third party completes the registration of ownership transfer after the completion of the period of prescription on the basis

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the starting point of the acquisition by prescription for each of the instant real estate was June 1, 1948 when the Plaintiff’s father Nonparty 1 commenced possession, and the period of prescription for the Plaintiff’s possession was completed on April 11, 1968 when 20 years passed from that date. The registration of ownership transfer for the completion of the acquisition by prescription was completed on September 24, 1980 between the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 on September 21, 1995, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the Defendant on June 21, 195, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot oppose the Defendant who newly acquired the ownership after the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below’s fact-finding and determination is justifiable. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to prescriptive acquisition or incomplete hearing as alleged in the grounds of

2. As to the assertion on the disposition of church properties

In the case of a church that is an organization of Germany, the church's annual report, contribution money, and other property which is the revenue of the church belongs to the collective ownership of the members of the church, unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, in the event that the church's articles of association or other rules exist or there is no such rules, the disposition of the property shall follow the resolution of the general meeting consisting of the members of the church (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2045, 2046, Dec. 9, 1980

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that there is no provision of the defendant's articles of association or any other rules concerning the disposal of the church's properties, and that the articles of the general meeting of the Korean Egymian association to which the defendant church belongs cannot be deemed to substitute for the resolution of the general meeting of the members of the defendant church, and that the evidence alone is insufficient to prove that the resolution of the general meeting of the members of the defendant church delegated the right to dispose of the properties of the case Nos. 2 and 3, which are the properties of the defendant church, or that there was other authority to dispose of the above properties of the defendant church, and that the defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of the sales contract concluded on February 11, 204 according to the resolution of the church council of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the mistake of facts against the rules of evidence and the disposal of church properties.

3. As to the assertion of expression representation

The representative of a church which is not a corporate body shall not be authorized to act on behalf of the members without the resolution of the members' general meeting concerning the disposal of the properties of the church which are collectively owned by the representative of a church (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da57679, Feb. 8, 2002; 2001Da73626, Jul. 11, 2003).

In the same purport, the court below was justified in rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the 2 and 3 real estate of this case. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the 2 and 3 real estate representation under Article 126 of the

4. As to the violation of the principle of good faith and abuse of rights

The lower court determined that the allegation that the instant sales contract was null and void on the ground that the Defendant church did not adopt a resolution of the general meeting of the members would not violate the principle of good faith or constitute an abuse of rights.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of good faith or abuse of rights.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)