2012A. 11570 Prohibited entry

A church

Representative Extraordinary president this**

Law Firm Gyeong, Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for defendant

Attorney Gangwon-do et al.

Kim*

Law Firm LLC (LLC)

Attorney Kim Jae-hwan, and Kim Byung-hee

April 18, 2013

May 9, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The defendant shall not have access to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. The defendant interferes with the plaintiff's use of each of the above immovables by himself or by a third party.

shall not commit any act.

3. If the Defendant breached the duty described in the above paragraphs 1 and 2, the daily violation day to the Plaintiff.

L. L. 100,000 won or more of money.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff church is a church that belongs to the B assembly* the labor union (hereinafter referred to as the "," * the labor union) and the defendant was appointed as a member of the plaintiff church on April 2006.

B. Around 209, the lower court sentenced the Defendant and the Plaintiff church as an administrative officer of the Defendant and the Plaintiff church* and the Plaintiff church trial member of the Plaintiff church on October 30, 2010 to be sentenced to dismissal or withdrawal from office on October 30, 201, and the appellate court **** the number of the parties on May 3, 201 to be dismissed and withdrawn from office ** the number of the parties on the final appeal to be dismissed on July 22, 201, respectively. However, on May 8, 2012, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the final appeal.

** In a new judgment in the old trial state, there was a new judgment that revoked a new judgment * * in a final judgment in the old trial state * in a final judgment in the old trial state.

C. On June 8, 2012, the defendant, who has been dissatisfied with the above new judgment, held a temporary joint council of the plaintiff church on June 8, 2012. The 227 regular members attended the above provisional joint council and agreed to withdraw from the plaintiff church****'s joint council on June 8, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the resolution of June 8, 2012"), followed by a resolution of the plaintiff church to withdraw from the association, and published a "public announcement of withdrawal from the association of the plaintiff church" on June 18, 2012 ****** through an examination * on June 10, 2012.

D. We do that.* The member state of the Trade Association decided on July 2, 2012 to dismiss the defendant from office as a member state of the Plaintiff church, as well as to dismiss the defendant as a member state of the Plaintiff church.* The member state of the Trade Association decided to send the defendant to the temporary member state of the Plaintiff church.

E. As such, when the dispute arises between the defendant and the* Union, on June 28, 2012, the political division of the B general assembly issued an order to transfer the name of the defendant (in writing, the name of the plaintiff church is written, but the object of the division is the defendant and the defendant's members) to the B general assembly** North Korean union (hereinafter referred to as "*** North Korean union"). Accordingly, on July 3, 2012, the defendant issued a decision to order the transfer of the name of the plaintiff church ** * as the name of the plaintiff church * around July 3, 2012 * as the name of the plaintiff church * around July 2012, the defendant applied for membership to the North Korean union * * as the name of the "Adembian (the defendant of the plaintiff church) * * the North Korean union * approved.

F. The real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 9 is the building and site of the plaintiff church, and the real estate No. 10 stated in the same list (the whole of the above real estate is referred to as "each of the above real estate of this case") is a building for the purpose of the company house use of the above list, and all of the above real estate has completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff church. The defendant still continues to engage in religious life, such as towing with the defendant's members from each of the real estate of this case.

G. Accordingly, the temporary meeting of the Plaintiff church* (as of April 16, 2013, the temporary meeting chairperson of the Plaintiff church* (as of the temporary meeting chairperson of the Plaintiff * the correction of the party indication*) filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on October 19, 2012, and the joint meeting on December 30, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "joint meeting resolution of December 30, 2012") opened and confirmed the instant lawsuit with the consent of 20 members, including ** 22 members, including *, etc.).

H. Meanwhile, on March 22, 2013, B general assembly trial division rendered a judgment of expulsion on the grounds that it started before the division of a church into a third party. * In the case of the first party to the division of a church, the first party to the division of a church. * In the case of the first party to the church on April 15, 2013, the first party to the division of a church * * in the case of the first party to the temporary division of a plaintiff church.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence 1 through 8, 12, 14, 25, Eul’s evidence 25, 26, 35, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant, through the resolution of the temporary assembly of this case, withdrawn from ** Union,* the removal of the association * the withdrawal of the association * the withdrawal of the Plaintiff church by joining the new association, thereby losing the right to use and benefit from each of the real estate of this case, which is the property of the Plaintiff church. Therefore, the Plaintiff church, as a claim for interference and distribution based on the ownership against the Defendant, shall file the claim of this case, such as

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The assertion

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful for the plaintiff church to file the lawsuit concerning its collective ownership without the resolution of the church or the joint council. Accordingly, the plaintiff church shall be deemed to be unlawful.

30. Since the adoption of the instant lawsuit in the self-council’s resolution, the filing of the instant lawsuit, which was adopted by the joint council, was lawful.

B. Determination

1) Under the premise that each of the instant real estate is owned by the Plaintiff church, the instant claim seeking the prohibition of entry into and exit from each of the instant real estate against the Defendant as the owner of the Plaintiff church constitutes the act of preservation and management of the collective property.

In this case, where a church, an association which is not a juristic person, files a lawsuit as an act of preserving property jointly owned by the articles of incorporation, it shall undergo the procedure prescribed by the articles of incorporation. In addition, unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, it shall undergo a resolution of a general meeting in accordance with Article 276(1) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 194Da28437, Oct. 25, 1994, etc.). Thus, in cases where a church, an association which is not a juristic person, files a lawsuit as an act of preserving property jointly owned by it, it shall undergo a resolution of a general meeting of members, unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17062, Dec. 27, 2007, etc.).

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, Article 79 of the B General Assembly Constitution (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution of the general assembly") to which the plaintiff church belongs is recognized as "management of real estate, such as the land and the house of the branch church" and the claim in this case belongs to the authority of the plaintiff church. Thus, in order for the plaintiff church to file the lawsuit in this case, the plaintiff church shall be exempted from resolution of the council.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff church passed a resolution of the above 20th meeting as an agenda item (as seen earlier, it is recognized that the plaintiff church passed a resolution of the 20th meeting on December 30, 2012, but Article 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that "the church shall be organized as the secretary of the branch church and the administrative secretary of the branch church," Article 78 provides that "the head of the church shall be the executive secretary of the branch church, and the head of the temporary church shall send the church at the time of vacancy of the chairman of the church," and the head of the above 7th meeting shall not be deemed to have passed a resolution of the 20th meeting on December 30, 2012 at the above 20th meeting and the above 1st meeting passed a resolution on the lawsuit of this case, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that the majority of the plaintiff church did not go through a resolution of the 20th meeting as a legitimate resolution of the general meeting, even if it did not go through a resolution of the general meeting.

B) Meanwhile, as long as a church exists as an association which is not a legal entity, in resolving disputes surrounding its legal relations by means of lawsuit, etc., the fact of the church should be identified in accordance with the general theory of the Civil Act concerning an association which is not a legal entity and the determination of whether the church properties belong

The legal principles pertaining to the property relations of an association which is not a juristic person, the rights of the members of the association and the withdrawal of the members of the association, especially the effects of collective withdrawal, etc. shall also be applied to a church. Therefore, the members shall jointly own the church's properties and use them and gain profit from the church. If some members leave the church and lose their status as the members of the church, whether they are individual or group or participate in the resolution on the management and disposition of the properties jointly owned by the previous church, or the right to use and gain profit from the properties of the previous church shall be lost. The previous church shall continue to exist while maintaining the consistency of its essence with the remaining members, and the properties of the previous church shall be jointly owned by the remaining members of the church. In addition, where part of the members of the branch church that belongs to a religious order decided to leave the religious order establish a separate church and appoint a separate representative and join another religious order, that church shall be deemed to be a newly incorporated association that is not a juristic person by the members who left the previous church, and it shall not be held by the members of the previous church (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 200740.7Da7406.

However, it is a concept that some members leave a different religious order and move to a different religious order is separate from collective withdrawal from the previous church. Whether it is possible to evaluate that the members who agreed to move to a different order have left the previous church is able to leave the previous church, in accordance with the general legal principles of juristic acts, whether the previous church expresses their intention to leave the religious order, whether the previous church gives up its doctrines and methods of worship and worship, whether the previous church uses a name different from the previous church or follow the doctrine of the previous church, and if the previous church fails to move to a different order, it shall be determined whether the previous church has formed a separate religious community with the previous church by intentionally excluding the remaining members who want to move to a different order from the previous church, or if it is decided that the previous church has no right to move to a different order, it shall be decided whether the previous church has no right to move to a different order or if it is decided that the previous church has no right to move to a different order, but it shall be decided whether it is valid when it is decided that the previous church has no right to move to a different order.

5. 27. See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da67665, 67672 Decided 27.

C) In light of the above legal principles, considering the whole purport of the arguments in the statement in Gap evidence No. 3 as to this case, Part XII of the Constitution of the general assembly provides that the general assembly has the authority to establish, merge, divide, or abolish the church as the highest assembly of all branch churches and branch churches (Article 96 subparag. 1 and 5), and the union appears to be an organization divided within the general assembly (Article 96 subparag. 1 and 5). The plaintiff church * the division of the B general assembly * the branch church belonging to the labor union and the defendant newly joined the labor union * the above * the labor union belonging to the same religious order * the labor union as the labor union under the B general assembly * the labor union * since the members of the B general assembly are in accordance with the same constitution, it cannot be viewed that the branch church merely changed its labor union, and the contents and the form of the services, which are the core elements of the existence of the church * the labor union changing within the same religious order * in accordance with all the members of the defendant's labor union * within the same order changed within the same order.

Furthermore, in addition to the above-mentioned evidences, ① the members of the defendant church depart from the above religious order * the members of the defendant church 2 and did not express their intention to leave the plaintiff church * the members of the above religious order * the members of the defendant church 2 * the members of the defendant church * the members of the defendant church * the members of the defendant church * the settlement of the church * the members of the defendant church * the members of the defendant church * the settlement of their religious lives * the members of the church * the members of the plaintiff church 2 0, while the members of the defendant church do not agree with the essential part of the members * the members of the plaintiff church 2 0, while maintaining the name of the existing plaintiff church 206 * the members of the plaintiff church 2 * the members of the plaintiff church 2 * the members of the plaintiff church 2 * the members of the plaintiff church 2, who were the members of the plaintiff church 2, still did not agree with the plaintiff church 3 2 or 2.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case filed without the resolution of the legitimate general meeting of the members is unlawful.

4. Determination on the burden of litigation costs

As the Defendant asserts that the litigation costs of this case should be borne by the president of a temporary party who is not the Plaintiff, * this, the costs of the lawsuit should be borne by the losing party among the parties (Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act). In exceptional cases where a third party bears the litigation costs, there are only cases where the legal representative, junior administrative officer, etc., or enforcement officer has paid the costs of the lawsuit without using them intentionally or by gross negligence (Article 107(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), where the person who conducted the litigation as a legal representative or an attorney does not prove that he/she was authorized to exercise his/her right of representation or litigation, or where he/she did not obtain ratification (Article 107(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), and where the lawsuit brought by an unauthorized representative is dismissed (Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, in this case, ** The representative of the Plaintiff’s party who filed the lawsuit of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff as the temporary president of the Plaintiff church, and the Plaintiff’s application for correction of the Plaintiff’s party indication cannot be seen as an exceptional under the Civil Procedure Act.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-dae

Judges Kim Gin-tae

Delay of Judge Draft

A person shall be appointed.