The judgment below

Among them, the main claim is to confirm the status of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) in relation to Defendant D and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The part of the Plaintiff’s ex officio determination on the part of the main claim against Defendant D and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) regarding the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the confirmation of the status of the teachership among the main claim against the Defendants of the Plaintiff C regarding the status of the teachership in the main claim against the Defendants of the Plaintiff C is an action seeking confirmation of the status of the teachershipship among the main claim against the Defendants of the Plaintiff C, who is not the Plaintiff’s church, by the Plaintiff C, as a teachership of the Plaintiff A Religious Organization B (hereinafter “Plaintiff church”).

Accordingly, even if the judgment accepting the claim is declared, the judgment cannot be deemed to be effective to the plaintiff church, and it cannot be the most effective and appropriate way to resolve the dispute between the parties surrounding the status of the standing member of the plaintiff church. Therefore, there is no benefit to confirm the claim of the above principal claim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da4104, Nov. 27, 1998). Nevertheless, the lower court determined on the merits on the premise that Plaintiff C’s Defendants had the benefit of confirmation in the part of the claim for confirmation of the status of the Plaintiff C’s main lawsuit.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interest in confirmation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On February 12, 2018, the lower court determined ex officio as to the part on the claim for confirmation of invalidity of the ex officio strike among the counterclaim against Plaintiff C by the remaining Defendants other than Defendant D (hereinafter “NS Defendants”), and the lower Defendants disputing the validity of the Plaintiff C’s act of appointing the Plaintiff as a member of the Plaintiff church and sending it (hereinafter “NS”) on February 12, 2018, who was the remaining Defendants, upon receiving a confirmation judgment against the Plaintiff church on the validity of the ex officio strike, may remove the legal uncertainty or danger surrounding whether the Plaintiff C is the representative of the Plaintiff church.

Unlike this, the plaintiff church is not the plaintiff church.