1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term.

Gap church (Law Firm Bupyeong General Law Office, Attorney Choi Ha-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

May 29, 2003

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant will implement each procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed in accordance with No. 86878 on November 21, 2001 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 3-A, 4, and 5 to the plaintiff, as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 86879 on November 21, 2001, and each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2-A and (b) of the same list.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, or evidence of subparagraph 1-1 through 7, evidence of subparagraph 3, evidence of subparagraph 4-1 through 4, evidence of subparagraph 5-1, evidence of subparagraph 5-2, evidence of subparagraph 8-2, 3, 4, evidence of subparagraph 9, evidence of subparagraph 10-1, 2, evidence of subparagraph 12, evidence of subparagraph 13-1 through 4, evidence of subparagraph 15, evidence of subparagraph 18-2, evidence of subparagraph 22, evidence of subparagraph 2, evidence of subparagraph 3, evidence of subparagraph 4-1, evidence of subparagraph 5-2 through 4, evidence of subparagraph 5-2, evidence of subparagraph 9-1 through 4, evidence of subparagraphs 1-1 through 7, evidence of subparagraphs 1-2, evidence of subparagraphs 1-1 through 7, evidence of Nonparty 1-2, evidence of subparagraph 1-2, evidence of subparagraph 1-2, evidence of subparagraph 1-1 through 7, evidence of subparagraph 1-2 and evidence

A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned by the original church A of the Korea Emotional Society, the Korea Emotional Association, A.

B. around January 200, the church A of the Korea Egyptian Egyptian Association constituted a party meeting, including Nonparty 3 of the Korea Egyptian, but at the meeting held around January 30 of the same year, there was an disagreement between Nonparty 3 and the Sincian with respect to the personnel affairs of Nonparty 4, one of the Sincians, and three of the Sincians left the above church during April of the same year. Nonparty 3 did not hold a party meeting but held a planning committee similar to that of the employees council under the Constitution of the religious order, and during this process, conflicts with the three Sincians, including Nonparty 1, which were remaining in the above church.

C. Among them, on May 3, 2001, the non-party 1 filed a complaint on the grounds that the non-party 3, who is a member of the Korea Egyptive Organization and the Gangwon-gu local council, uses the church's properties or independently executes the church's properties. The members of the above church divided the non-party 3 into the part supporting the non-party 3 and the part opposing the non-party 3 (the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, including the non-party 1), and on July 15, 2001, the non-party 3 deprived the non-party 1 of the position as the head of the above church and ordered the non-party 1 to be removed from the list of employees.

D. At the Gangseo-gu Council of the Korean Emotioninessinessinessinessinessinessinessinessinessiness, the non-party 3, whose disciplinary action against the non-party 3 against the non-party 3 was flexible, did the work of receiving signatures from the members who agreed to leave the religious order in order to leave the religious order, and around August 26, 2001, the non-party 3 decided to leave the religious order by raising about 60 members supporting the non-party 3, and declared on September 4, 2001 that the non-party 1 should leave the religious order by making the name of the non-party 3 leave the religious order. On November 4, 2001 of the same year, the non-party 5, the non-party 6, the non-party 7, the non-party 8, and the non-party 9, who are the members on December 2 of the same year.

E. In response, on October 11, 2001, the above Gangseo-gu local council issued a dismissal order to Nonparty 3, and dispatched Nonparty 10 to the chairman of the last 27th of the same month. On November 3 of the same year, the head of the party who objects to Nonparty 3, such as Nonparty 1, the council held a temporary office meeting on the 18th of the same month and decided to send Nonparty 11 to the wood company, and the above temporary office meeting held about 30 members attending the above temporary office meeting, and passed a resolution to see Nonparty 11 as the wood company, and the above general meeting was excluded from the part supporting Nonparty 3.

F. On October 21, 2001, in support of Nonparty 3, the planning committee was held on October 21, 2001 to change the name of the church (five persons present), and the name of the church was decided to change the ownership of the instant real estate from the church A of the Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mod Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Ka to the A church, and on November 3 of the same year, the party was organized with five members of the church A of the church A of the Mod Mod Mod Mod Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad 3 did not unilaterally oppose the registration of ownership transfer.

G. On Oct. 28, 2001, the above Gangseo-gu local council dispatched Nonparty 10 with Nonparty 10 on a temporary basis and delivered the worship of Nonparty 15 Won. At this time, Nonparty 3 had a disturbance between the side supporting Nonparty 3 and the opposing side while Nonparty 3 would deliver the worship. From the latter, both parties sent the worship under the delivery of each pastor within the church building listed in attached Table 5 (hereinafter “instant church building”) as indicated in attached Table 5 (hereinafter “instant church building”). On Dec. 30 of the same year, the parties supported Nonparty 3 as they prevented the entry of the opposing church, and the opposing side supported Nonparty 3 from the instant church building, and the opposing side considered the worship or the outer building of the instant church building, respectively.

H. Since then, the Plaintiff filed an application with Nonparty 3 for the removal of obstacles, prohibition of passage interference, prohibition of worship interference, prohibition of worship, prohibition of worship, and provisional disposition of the departure wages. The Seoul High Court accepted the application for provisional disposition of prohibition of obstruction, prohibition of passage interference, prohibition of towing obstruction, and provisional disposition of prohibition of towing obstruction as of October 18, 202 (case number omitted) and dismissed the remainder of the application, namely, the application for provisional disposition of prohibition of worship and prohibition of entry prohibition. After all, the side and opposing side supporting Nonparty 3 have reported to the towing in the delivery of each of the instant church buildings at each of the places of the instant church buildings.

The defendant, after internal resolution on September 4, 2001, left the order Gap church of the Korea Emotions Association A and changed the name of the Gap church on October 21 of the same year, the plaintiff church has no capacity to be a party due to its extinguishment of its substance, and even if it is not so, according to Article 8 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Korea Emotions Association Constitution of the Korea Emotions Association, the request for the consultation of the members of the office shall go through the inspection meeting with the consent of a majority of the members of the office members after the resolution of the office meeting. Since the non-party 11, who was the representative of the plaintiff church, failed to complete the necessary ice procedures, such as the resolution of the general meeting of the above office members, it cannot be a legitimate representative, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed by that person is unlawful.

As examined below, since the plaintiff church after the division is deemed to have been divided into the plaintiff church and the defendant church, the plaintiff church after the division shall be deemed to have the ability to be a party, and the plaintiff church after the division shall have the ability to file the lawsuit in this case after the resolution of the general assembly of its members at the time when the plaintiff church files the lawsuit in this case and the fact that the plaintiff 11 was dismissed after the resolution of the plaintiff church and the general assembly of the affairs of the plaintiff church shall be as seen above. Thus, at the time of filing the lawsuit in this case, the non-party 11 shall have the right to represent the plaintiff church, and therefore, the defendant's main

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The members supporting the non-party 3 voluntarily withdraw from the church A of the Korea Emotions Association, and the above church is not divided, and the plaintiff is the church A of the Korea Emotions Association A of the Korea Emotions Association, and the non-party 3 was registered as the representative of the plaintiff church on an opportunity to complete the registration of ownership transfer concerning the real estate in the name of the defendant church at will without the resolution of the plaintiff church's office affairs general meeting. Therefore, all of the above registration of ownership transfer is null and void, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of each ownership transfer as stated in the

(b) Markets:

(1) Whether a church is divided

According to the above facts, the church A, including Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 1, is in conflict with each other, and on May 3, 2001, Nonparty 1 filed a complaint with Nonparty 3 with the above Gangseo-gu local council on the same day, and the members of the church are clearly divided into the side supporting Nonparty 3 and the side opposing Nonparty 3, and the part supporting Nonparty 3 left the order and made a new head of the operation as an independent church by withdrawing from the order of the members of the association, separately from the plaintiff's side, and reported the services under the delivery of Nonparty 3, and the side opposing the non-party 3 lawfully left the order after leaving the order of the previous order of the church, and the delivery of the services to the non-party 3, separately from the defendant church's pre-existing church's pre-existing order of the non-party 3, shall be viewed as participating in the resolution of the non-party 1 to move to the order of the pre-existing church. In light of the circumstances of the plaintiff church's pre-existing church's pre-division.

(2) Whether the plaintiff's right to claim cancellation exists

As seen earlier, in case where one church is divided into two churches, the head of the church or other generally approved regulations provide for the cases in which the church is divided into two churches, and since the properties of the previous church belong to the collective ownership of the members at the time of the division and the management and disposal of the properties jointly owned by the members as well as their preservation activities shall follow a resolution of the general meeting (refer to Supreme Court Decision 94Da21733 delivered on February 24, 1995). Thus, in this case where there is no evidence to prove that the church Gap of the Korea Emotioninessiness church was a resolution of the general meeting of the members at the time of the division into the plaintiff church and the defendant church, the plaintiff church consisting of some of the members of the Korea Emotioniness church Gap of the Korea Emotioniness church cannot request the cancellation of the above registration of ownership transfer against the defendant church.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)