The Gangnam-do Seoul High School Association (Law Firm Bobna, Attorneys Excellent-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Assembly of the Korean President of the Korea Coast Guard (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

May 17, 2012

1. On August 1, 201, the Defendant confirmed that the judgment that “A resolution that the Pyeongtaekyang Society of Korea would approve the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s request as a delegated pastor (from October 17, 2005 to October 18, 2005) is null and void.”

2. On December 8, 2011, the Defendant confirmed that the ruling that “a resolution by the Korea Egymnas Association of Egymnasium against the Plaintiff Intervenor by the Korea Egymnas Association of Egymnasium ( April 21, 1993) is null and void.”

3. On December 23, 2011, the Defendant confirmed that the ruling that “a resolution that the Pyeongtaekyang-do Council of Korea would approve the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s request as the delegated wood company (Article 168, Oct. 17, 2005, Oct. 18, 2005) is null and void.”

4. It is confirmed that the representative of the Plaintiff (a delegated pastor, a codinant, and the president of the party) is an intervenor assisting the Plaintiff.

5. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiff was established on May 14, 1967 as a branch church belonging to the Bupyeong Labor Council under the defendant's jurisdiction.

B. Resolution on religious order constitution and general assembly

(1) The contents pertaining to this case, among the religious order, the Constitution and the implementation rules of the Korean Association of the Korea Association of the Korea Association, are as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 ◆ 교단헌법 제2편 정치 제1장 원리 제5조 치리권(주1) 치리권은 온 교회가 택하여 세운 대표자로 행사한다. 치리권의 행사는 하나님의 명령을 받들어 섬기고 전달하는 것이며, 오직 하나님의 뜻에 따라야 할 것이다. 제5장 목사 제26조(목사의 자격) 1. 목사는 신앙이 진실하고 행위가 복음에 적합하며, 가정을 잘 다스리고 타인의 존경을 받는 자로서 다음 사항에 해당하는 자라야 한다. ① 무흠한 세례교인으로 7년을 경과한 자 ② 30세 이상 된 자로서 총회 직영 신학대학원을 졸업한 후 2년 이상 교역 경험을 가진 자(다만, 군목과 선교목사는 예외로 한다) ③ 총회 목사고시에 합격한 자 제27조(목사의 칭호) 목사의 칭호는 다음과 같다. 1. 위임목사는 지교회의 청빙으로 노회의 위임을 받은 목사이다. 2. 임시목사는 노회의 허락을 받아 임시로 시무하는 목사이다. 시무기간은 3년이다. 제28조(목사의 청빙) 1. 조직교회는 위임목사를 청빙할 수 있다. 2. 위임목사의 청빙은 당회의 결의와 공동의회의 출석회원 2/3 이상의 찬성을 얻어야 한다. 청빙서는 공동의회에 출석한 세례교인(입교인) 과반수가 서명 날인한 명단, 당회록 사본, 공동의회 회의록 사본, 목사의 이력서를 첨부하여 노회에 제출하여야 한다. 4. 부목사의 청빙은 당회의 결의와 제직회의 동의를 얻어야 한다. 청빙서는 제직회 출석회원 과반수가 서명날인한 명단, 당회록 사본, 제직회 회의록 사본, 목사의 이력서를 첨부하여 노회에 제출하여야 한다. (후략) 제29조(청빙의 승인) 1. 청빙서를 접수한 노회는 노회의 결의로 청빙을 승인한다. 2. 노회가 청빙의 승인을 결의한 경우에는 노회장은 청빙서를 청빙받은 목사에게 교부하여야 한다. 3. 노회의 폐회 중에는 노회 정치부의 결의를 거쳐 임원회가 청빙승인을 할 수 있다. 제32조(목사의 임직) 목사의 자격이 구비된 자가 목사로 청빙을 받은 경우에 노회석상에서 임직한다. 제33조(목사의 임직식과 위임식) 노회는 목사의 임직식과 위임식을 주관한다. (후략) 제38조(목사후보생) 목사후보생은 목사직을 희망하는 자로서 노회의 자격심사를 받고 그 지도 아래 신학대학원에 재학 중이거나 졸업한 전도사이며 개인으로는 그 당회 아래 있고 직무상으로는 노회 아래 있다. 제6장 장로 제39조(장로의 직무) 장로의 직무는 다음과 같다. 1. 장로는 교회의 택함을 받고 치리회의 회원이 되어 목사와 협력하여 행정과 권징을 관장한다. 제8장 집사 및 권사 제50조(집사의 직무) 집사는 교회의 택함을 받고 제직회의 회원이 되며, 교회를 봉사하고 헌금을 수납하며, 구제에 관한 일을 담당한다. 제9장 치리회 제60조(치리회의 구분) 치리회는 당회, 노회, 총회로 구분한다. 제61조(치리회의 구성) 모든 치리회는 목사와 장로로 구성한다. 제62조(치리회의 관할) 1. 각급 치리회는 헌법이나 규칙에 대하여 이견이 있을 때는 상회의 유권적 해석에 의할 것이며 성경의 교훈대로 교회의 성결과 평화를 위하여 처리한다. 제63조(치리회의 권한) 1. 치리회는 교인으로 하여금 도덕과 영적 사건에 대하여 그리스도의 법에 복종케 하는 것이다. 2. 치리회는 교회의 평화와 질서를 유지하며 행정과 권징의 권한을 행사한다. 제10장 당회 제67조(당회장) 당회장은 다음과 같이 노회가 임명한다. 1. 당회장은 지교회 시무 목사가 된다. 2. 임시 당회장은 당회장이 결원되었을 때 노회가 이를 파송한다. 제11장 노회 제72조(노회의 의의) 그리스도의 몸된 교회에 여러 지교회가 있으므로 서로 협력하여 교리를 보전하고, 행정과 권징을 위하여 노회가 있다. 제73조(노회의 조직) 2. 노회는 노회 소속 목사와 당회에서 파송한 총대장로로 조직한다. 제12장 총회 제83조(총회의 의의) 대한예수교장로회 총회는 대한예수교장로회 최고 치리회이다. 제87조(총회의 직무) 총회의 직무는 다음과 같다. 1. 총회는 소속 각 치리회 및 지교회와 소속 기관 및 산하 단체를 총찰한다. 2. 총회는 하급 치리회에서 합법적으로 제출한 문의, 헌의, 청원, 행정쟁송, 상고, 총회 특별재심 등의 서류를 접수하여 처리한다.(후략) 제3편 권징 제1장 총칙 제4조(책벌의 원칙) 죄과를 범한 자의 책벌은 재판절차를 거쳐서 행하여야 한다. 1. 모든 교인(직원)은 재판을 받아 자기를 방어할 권리를 가진다. 2. 재판을 받지 않고는 권징할 수 없다. 단, 재판회 석상에서 범한 제3조 제10항의 범죄(치리회 석상에서 폭언, 폭행, 기물파괴 행위)에 대하여는 즉시 가중처벌할 수 있다. 3. 재판은 3심제로 하며 제1심은 당회인 치리회에서, 제2심은 노회상설 재판국에서, 제3심은 총회상설 재판국에서 관장한다. 제5조(책벌의 종류와 내용) 1. 책벌은 다음과 같다. ⑦ 면직 : 직원의 신분을 박탈한다. 제6조(재판의 원칙) 재판은 성경과 헌법 또는 헌법 시행 규정에 의해 공정하게 행하여야 한다. 제10조(구성) 1. 총회 재판국은 총회에서 선임된 재판국원 15인(목사 8인, 장로 7인)으로 구성한다. 다만 재판국원은 동일한 노회 파송총대 중 1인에 한하여 선임된다. 2. 재판국원 15인 가운데 2인 이상은 법학을 전공한 법학사 학위를 가진 자 중에서 공천위원회의 공천으로 선임하여야 한다. 제8장 행정쟁송 제2절 행정소송 제151조(행정소송의 대상) 행정소송은 치리회장이 행한 행정행위를 대상으로 한다. 제152조(행정소송의 종류) 행정소송은 다음과 같이 구분한다. 1. 취소소송 : 치리회장이 행한 헌법 또는 규정에 위반한 행정행위의 취소 또는 변경하는 소송 2. 무효 등 확인소송 : 치리회장이 행한 행정행위의 효력 유무 또는 존재 여부를 확인하는 소송 제154조(원고적격) 2. 무효 등 확인소송은 행정행위의 효력 유무 또는 존재여부에 대한 확인을 구할 헌법 또는 규정상의 권리 또는 이익이 있는 자가 제기할 수 있다. 제155조(피고적격 및 경정) 1. 행정소송은 그 행정행위를 행한 치리회장을 피고로 한다.(후략) 제156조(제3자의 소송참가) 재판국은 소송의 결과에 따라 권리 또는 이익의 침해를 받을 제3자가 있는 경우에는 당사자 또는 제3자의 신청 또는 직권에 의하여 결정으로써 그 제3자를 소송에 참가시킬 수 있다. 제3절 결의 취소 등의 소송 제163조(결의 취소의 소) 1. 치리회의 소집절차, 결의 방법, 그 결의의 내용이 헌법 또는 규정에 위반된다고 인정할 때에는 당해 치리회 회원은 결의의 날로부터 60일 이내에 치리회장을 피고로 하여 결의 취소의 소를 치리회를 경유하여 치리회의 차상급 치리회 재판국에 제기할 수 있다. 제164조(결의 무효확인의 소) 1. 치리회의 소집절차, 결의 방법, 그 결의의 내용이 중대하고 명백하게 헌법 또는 규정에 위반된다고 인정할 때에는 당해 치리회 회원은 치리회장을 피고로 하여 결의무효 확인의 소를 치리회를 경유하여 치리회의 차상급 치리회 재판국에 제기할 수 있다. ◆ 헌법시행규정 제2장 정치 제16조(청빙 및 행정처리) 4. 헌법 정치 제26조 제1항 제2호 중 2년 이상의 교역경험을 가진 자란 전임전도사(신학대학원졸업 후 교육전도사 기간은 절반 인정함) 경력 2년 이상의 증빙서류(당회장발부)를 첨부한 자를 의미하며, 이 경우 신학대학원 졸업시 총회에서 전도사 자격을 이미 인정하였으므로 목사안수시 노회 전도사 고시합격증을 첨부하지 않아도 된다. 제28조(목사후보생) 1. 목사 후보생은 무흠 세례교인(입교인)으로서, 당회장의 추천으로 노회장의 허락을 받아 신학대학원에 재학 중이거나 졸업한 전도사로서 소속은 당회에 있고 노회 목사후보생지도위원회의 지도감독을 받아야 하며, 목사안수시 면접(시취)은 노회 정치부가 담당한다. (후략)

Note 1) Sovereign rights

(2) At a meeting of the 69th general meeting, the Defendant adopted a resolution that “the holders of foreign permanent sovereignty and citizenship from among the pastors belonging to the Defendant and the head shall not be allowed to take part in all public offices.”

(3) After that, at the 87th general meeting, the defendant adopted a resolution stating that “the holders of foreign sovereignty in the country belonging to the defendant and the head shall be allowed to be free from the public office, but the foreign citizenship holders shall not be allowed to be free from the public office.”

(c) The number of pastors of the Pyeongtaekyang-do Council and the approval of the ice ice ice ice of a delegated pastor;

(1) On February 191, 1991, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor graduated from the graduate school directly operated by the Defendant, and received a brupted tree at the Bupyeong-gu Council under the Defendant’s control on April 21, 1993.

(2) On July 17, 2005, the Plaintiff’s party council decided to have the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s delegated wood. On July 24, 2005, the Plaintiff’s joint council decided to have the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s delegated wood with the consent of all members present at the meeting. On August 24, 2005, the Plaintiff requested to approve the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s ice as delegated wood. On October 17, 2005, the Bupyeong Labor Council decided to approve the Plaintiff’s above ice. Accordingly, on October 2005, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was holding office as delegated wood (the Plaintiff’s party chairman and fence).

D. The progress of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the first delegated wood company approval resolution by a trial state under the defendant's jurisdiction

(1) Around June 2011, Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff’s internal collector, filed a complaint against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on the charge of fraud and embezzlement, but the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a disposition to the effect that the above accusation was groundless on December 12, 201.

(2) On June 20, 201, Nonparty 2 filed a lawsuit against the president of the Pyeongtaek-gu Council, the president of the Plaintiff’s higher rank, to seek confirmation of invalidity of delegated ice ice ices against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on the following grounds: (a) Nonparty 2 filed a lawsuit with the Defendant-affiliated trial division (hereinafter “general assembly trial division”).

According to the list (A) Nos. 69, 87, the resolution of the general assembly and the interpretation cases of the general assembly constitution, etc. included in the main text, a foreign citizen can not hold a meeting, and the members of the church can not be the chairman of the church, and the members of the council approved ice in a state where the status of the member of the plaintiff assistant, who is a U.S. citizen, was not properly grasped. (B) The members of the △△△△△△△△ Council, at the time of the above resolution, adopted a resolution by vote in violation of the principle of the secret voting for the election of the religious order constitution, etc., the principle of the secret voting for the personal election, and

(3) On August 1, 2011, the general assembly trial state accepted the reasons for the above (a)-mentioned (2)-a, and sentenced the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, a U.S. citizen with the authority delegated by the Plaintiff, to the following judgments (hereinafter “the judgment invalidating the first hearing approval resolution”) that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, a U.S. citizen with the authority delegated by the Plaintiff, violated the Defendant’s 69 and 87 general assembly approval resolution (hereinafter “the judgment invalidating the first hearing approval resolution”).

The name name contained in the main text: The plaintiff's non-party 2's house name is the kind of administrative litigation for the confirmation of invalidity of the request of the delegated pastor that is filed against the non-party 5 pastor: the order of the confirmation of invalidity of the resolution: the decision that the Bupyeong-gu Council approves the hearing of the plaintiff's assistant pastor (the plaintiff's assistant pastor) as the plaintiff's delegate pastor (the 168th time between October 17 and 18, 2005) is invalid.

(e) Duties of the resolution of the plenary session and the temporary president of the non-party 9;

(1) On August 4, 201, on the grounds that there was a vacancy in the president of a party branch of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 67(2) of Part II of the religious order Constitution, the Pyeongtaek Labor Association decided to send Nonparty 9 to the president of the party branch of the Plaintiff’s temporary president, and notified the Plaintiff of the next day.

(2) On August 5, 201, Nonparty 9, in accordance with the above strike resolution, moved to the temporary president of the Plaintiff’s party branch on August 5, 201, while carrying out the duties of the temporary president of the party branch. As to whether the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is still in the position of the president of the Plaintiff branch, Nonparty 9, upon the conflict between the members of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, went through serious conflict and strike.

(f) Results of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a temporary resolution of strike by the president;

(1) The non-party 6 and the non-party 4, who are the heads of the plaintiff church, filed a lawsuit against the president of the Bupyeong-gu Labor Council to seek confirmation of invalidity of the above strike resolution based on the above judgment on the ground that there was an excessive error in the judgment of invalidation of the first hearing approval resolution by the general assembly's board of directors. However, the general assembly court dismissed the above lawsuit on September 16, 201.

(2) Pursuant to Article 14(2) of the Assembly Rules, Nonparty 6 sent a reply to the Constitutional Committee under the jurisdiction of the defendant, who is in charge of research and interpretation on the constitution of a religious order, to the effect that “(i) whether standing to sue is recognized to an internal collector who is not a member of the church in a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of a resolution under Article 164 of the Constitution of a religious order, and ② whether a pastor and the head can be subject to disciplinary action without being tried.” Accordingly, the above Constitutional Committee sent a reply on September 16, 201 to the effect that “(i) an administrative litigation may be brought by a third party in the interpretation of the above constitutional provisions, but in the case of a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of a resolution, only the relevant assistant member may bring a lawsuit, and (ii) the pertinent assistant member may not be subject to disciplinary action without being tried under Article 4(2)

(3) On the other hand, on September 15, 201, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor filed a petition for special review with the head of the Defendant’s general meeting to the effect that the petition should be dismissed on the grounds that “the judgment invalidating the first motion approval resolution is not an administrative litigation but an administrative litigation, and if the petition is filed, it would be prejudicial to the dignity and fairness of the judgment of the court in the general meeting” on the same day.

After that, at the meeting of the 96th general meeting held from September 21, 2011 to September 22, 2011 by the defendant, the petition for special review was rejected without the consent of at least 2/3 of the re-examination.

(4) On November 23, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Bupyeong Labor Association and the non-party 9 to confirm the invalidity of the temporary president’s resolution (Seoul Central District Court 201Gahap83665). The above court rendered a favorable judgment on November 23, 2011, stating that “The judgment invalidating the first president’s approval resolution was final and conclusive on the ground that not only the basic litigation procedures in the church that the constitution of the religious order borrowed the current law, but also the nature of the funeral and the organization rules that strictly limits the exercise of the right of pledge and the subject of the correction thereof, or that there is a serious procedural defect that violates the nature of the funeral and the organization rules that guarantee the autonomy of each dental association,” on August 4, 2011, which sent the non-party 9 to the non-party 9 as the temporary president of the Plaintiff, and that the non-party 9 has no status as the temporary president of the Plaintiff.” The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 16, 2011

(g) the progress of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of a resolution of acceptance of a wooden case in the Assembly.

(1) On the other hand, on October 14, 201, Nonparty 7, the Plaintiff’s president, filed an administrative suit against the president of the General Assembly of Korea, stating that “In order to receive a wood case, Nonparty 7, the president of the Plaintiff, has experience of two years or more in Korea,” and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor filed an administrative suit against the president of the General Assembly of Korea, stating that “The Plaintiff merely carried out a sexual ambassador as a new student status at the △△△△△△ school, a church affiliated with the other church, but received a wood case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor should have the status of a wood

(2) On December 8, 2011, a general assembly trial office rendered a judgment that “In order to take advantage of the provisions of Article 26-1 of Part 2 of Part 2 of the School Constitution, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor shall have experience in trading for two years (pre-time officer). However, from July 1991 to April 16, 193, the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Council, in the U.S., directed the Plaintiff into the position of a third party in the position of a third party, and did not perform the duty of the preceding party,” on the ground that “The Determination that the adoption of a wooden case against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor made at the Labor Association at the 138th Session ( April 21, 1993) is invalid” (hereinafter “the Judgment that invalidated the instant resolutions”).

(3) In the latter case, the president of the Youngyang Labor union filed a request for a review of the judgment invalidating the resolutions of this case with the jurisdiction of the general assembly. However, on February 6, 2012, on the grounds that “Article 124 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea only acknowledges a retrial, which is a final and conclusive judgment on the punishment, and it shall not be invoked to administrative litigation.”

(h) the progress of lawsuits seeking confirmation of invalidity of the approval of the second delegate pastor by the Assembly trial state.

(1) On November 25, 201, Nonparty 7 and 2, the Plaintiff’s head, filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution that “the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor was a U.S. citizen at the time of attending the general assembly as the Plaintiff church, and was not qualified as a pastor because he did not have a career of more than two years prior to the time of receiving a wood case, and that at the time of receiving a wood case, would confirm that it is invalid for a resolution that approved the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor as the Plaintiff’s delegate.”

(2) On December 23, 2011, a general assembly trial division cannot be deemed to have cured the defect at the time of the hearing even if the intervenor’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the deliberation of the general assembly and the resolution of approval of the participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the deliberation of the general assembly, and even if six years have passed since the participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the deliberation, the Plaintiff’s participation in the deliberation of the general assembly cannot be deemed to have been cured. As a result of the judgment confirming the invalidity of the participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the Plaintiff’s participation in the deliberation, the

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 21, 28, 29, 31, Eul 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 21, 28, 29, 31, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The assertion that a lawsuit filed by a person without the power of representation is unlawful

(1) The defendant's assertion

As a result of a general assembly trial decision, it is confirmed that the resolution to accept a wood case against the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the resolution to approve the request of a delegated pastor is null and void, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is not in the position of the Plaintiff’s pastor and the Plaintiff’s representative. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as a lawsuit filed by a non-representative of the power of representation.

(2) Determination

As seen in the following, the above decision of each general assembly court does not have any significant and apparent defect, and thus, the plaintiff's assistant intervenor still maintains the status as the plaintiff's representative and the wood company belonging to the defendant and the plaintiff's representative. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. The allegation that the claim for nullification of the judgment that invalidated the first ice approval resolution does not have a benefit of confirmation

(1) The defendant's assertion

Since the judgment of the court of the general assembly after the judgment of invalidation of the first ice approval resolution was rendered again to render a judgment of invalidation of the second ice approval resolution and then confirmed that the above ice approval resolution was null and void, there is no interest in confirmation as it constitutes a claim seeking confirmation of the existence of past legal relations.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was already deprived of his qualification as a pastor by the final judgment on invalidation of the Plaintiff’s Disciplinary Resolution, and even if the judgment on invalidity of the first Cheongice Approval Resolution was rendered, the Plaintiff’s qualification as the president cannot be granted. Thus, this part of the claim does not constitute an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risk or apprehension with respect to the present rights or legal status, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation.

(2) Determination

In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation in the lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as the confirmation judgment in removing the anxiety and danger (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010, etc.). In addition, in cases where: (a) the legal relationship in the past has an impact on the current rights or legal status; and (b) it is deemed as a valid and appropriate means to obtain a confirmation judgment in respect of the legal relationship in order to eliminate the current rights or risks or apprehensions in the current rights or legal status, the lawsuit for confirmation of the legal relationship should be deemed as having an benefit of immediate confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43580, Sept. 30, 20

However, as seen later, there is no significant and apparent defect in the judgment invalidating the second Cheong-ice Approval Resolution and the judgment invalidating the inside of this case. Therefore, as long as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor still holds the position of a pastor belonging to the Defendant and has no validity in the second Cheong-ice Approval Resolution, if the judgment invalidating the first ice Approval Resolution becomes null and void, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor still holds the status of the Plaintiff’s delegate, and thus, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is still in the position of the Plaintiff’s delegate. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking nullification of the judgment invalidating the first ice Approval Resolution is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate anxietys and risks as to whether the Plaintiff’s Intervenor currently holds the status of delegate.

Therefore, all of the defendant's defenses are without merit.

C. The plaintiff's claim that certain members should confirm the status of representative of the plaintiff

(1) The defendant's assertion

Since the plaintiff assistant intervenor is part of the plaintiff's members who actually interfere with the plaintiff's performance of his/her duties as the plaintiff assistant pastor, the plaintiff assistant intervenor must request the above members to confirm the status of the pastor.

(2) Determination

As seen earlier, the Defendant sent a provisional president by denying that the Intervenor was in the status of the Plaintiff’s delegate, and rendered a judgment invalidating the invalidity of the instant safe-water resolution and the judgment invalidating the ice ice Delegation Resolution, as seen earlier. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has interest in seeking confirmation of the appointment of delegate title by the Intervenor against the Defendant who disputes the Defendant’s status of delegate title.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Relevant legal principles

(1) In light of the fact that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and strictly separates religion and state function, the organization and operation of a religious organization shall be guaranteed autonomy as much as possible. Thus, in order to determine that various resolutions or dispositions that affect an individual's status within a church are null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is a procedural defect in the degree that such resolutions or dispositions by a general non- religious organization are null and void, and if such defect is so serious that it would seriously go against the concept of justice, it should be said that it goes against the concept of justice (Supreme Court Decision 2003Da63104 Decided February 10, 2006).

(2) Meanwhile, in a case where a new church with the substance of an unincorporated association is incorporated into a branch church that belongs to a specific religious order and forms a decision-making body and transfers a religious order as the representative of a branch church, there is a difference depending on the body of the religious order, but in principle, a branch church is an unincorporated association from the religious order and the religious order is an internal organization of the branch church, and the religious order does not pass only to the higher organization of the branch church in a religious relationship. However, even in a case where the branch church does not have its own rules or where it receives the Constitution prescribed by its own rules as an autonomous norm corresponding to its own rules, it is bound by the religious order constitution only to the extent that it does not infringe on the independence of the branch church or the essence of the religious freedom (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da37775 delivered on April 20,

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant not only provides for the resolution of internal disputes through various judicial proceedings, but also provides specific procedural rules for each of the judicial proceedings. Although the necessity of guaranteeing the autonomy of the organization and operation of a religious organization exists clearly, even considering this, if there is a serious defect in the procedural procedure that is set up by itself, or if the decision or disposition of the Defendant seriously infringes on the independence of the branch church or the essence of the freedom of religion, it may not be acceptable as it is if it seriously deviates from and abused the discretion and causes a result that seriously goes against the concept of justice.

(b) Claim to nullify the invalidity of a judgment of invalidation of the first ice approval resolution

In light of the above, since the resolution to approve a meeting of the Bupyeong Labor Council, which is the object of the first decision to nullify the approval of the meeting, falls under the “resolution of the meeting” as prescribed by Article 29(1) of Part II of the Constitution of the religious order, the “General Register dispatched by the meeting of the union members and the general register dispatched by the meeting of the union members pursuant to Articles 73 and 164(1) of Part II of the Constitution of the religious order,” which is the member of the meeting of the union members, can be brought to the trial division of the next regular meeting, on the ground that the procedure or contents of the above resolution violate significant and obvious constitution or regulations. However, Nonparty 2 who brought the above lawsuit is merely the “collection of the council members” of the plaintiff who is the branch church, and it is apparent that the above lawsuit is not a member of the council of the first regular meeting, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above resolution is not an object of the resolution of the 10th regular meeting of the parties to the lawsuit, which is not an object of the resolution of invalidation of the 1010th general meeting.

① Furthermore, it is interpreted to the effect that the standing of the council members disputing the effect of the resolution of the council on the religious order is restricted to the members of the council, as well as horizontal autonomy among the council members in equal status, and that the decision-making of the council at each level is to guarantee the vertical autonomy of the council members independently from the council on the upper and lower level. ② Articles 5, 61, 63, and 73 of Part II of the Constitution clearly define the meaning and scope of the right of the council members and the members of the council who are in charge of administration and authority are strictly limited to those of the council members, ③ it is necessary to ensure that the assembly members of the council on the religious order's delegation of the council members or the members of the council on the grounds that the council on the religious order's separation of the council members and the members of the council on the resolution of the council on the separation of the council members and the members of the council on the separation of the council members and the members of the council on the resolution on the invalidation of the council's resolution.

C. Claim to nullify the invalidity of the judgment on invalidity of the Notarial Resolution of this case

(1) The significance of the resolution of the number of cases of the union meeting

According to Article 28, Article 32, and Article 33 of Part II of the Constitution of the religious order, where a candidate for a pastor is qualified as a pastor, he/she shall undergo the ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice Doo, and he/she shall submit a letter of ice ice ice ice ice ice, a copy of the meeting and the minutes of the meeting, a certified copy of the pension certificate, a certified copy of the family register and a certified copy of the family registration certificate, and a new certificate of ice ice ice ice tyice ice ice ice ice.

In addition, there is no explicit provision regarding the resolution of the council of the religious order to grant a pastor qualification to a person who is qualified as a pastor, but it does not seem that the council of the religious order constitution requires a separate resolution to grant a pastor qualification. However, in light of the fact that the above recognition should undergo an interview at the political division of the union upon the case (Article 28 of the Enforcement Rule of the Constitution), if the union requests the ice approval of a person who is newly employed as a pastor from a branch church, it seems that the resolution to grant a pastor's qualification under Article 26 of Part II of the religious order after obtaining a pastor's pass certificate, a certificate of graduation from a new school, and a certificate of trade to obtain a pastor's qualification under Article 26 of the Constitution of the religious order, it appears that the resolution to grant a pastor's qualification is also referred to as a resolution to grant a pastor's qualification.

(2) The validity of the judgment invalidating the resolution of this case

(A) Facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 21-3, 4, and 24-24.

① From January 1, 1991, the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor served as a former physician at the ○○ church, which is a branch church of the Defendant, and passed a wooden accident around April 1991, and was dispatched from the ○○○○○ University’s status as the ○○○ University’s Doctrine, and served as a former physician at the △△△△△△△△△△△ Council located in the U.S. from July 1991 to April 16, 1993.

② Around April 1993, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor submitted a career certificate on the issuance of the △△△△△△△△△△ Council’s temporary officer Nonparty 8, which, at the time when the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was under the supervision of ○○○○ Council as a secondary pastor from the Han Mandocian Council, which was in the above time when he was under the supervision of ○○○○○ Council as a secondary pastor. The Plaintiff’s regular member recognized that the Intervenor was under the control of the United States, and recognized that the Intervenor was under the control of the United States, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s supplementary member was preparing and submitting a resume that the Plaintiff’s regular member was under the control of the ○○○○ church as a full-time physician from January 1, 1991.

③ After the resolution of the party meeting and the consent of the plenary session, the ○○○○○ Council submitted the curriculum and career certificate at the time of requesting that the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor be in service as a pastor and that the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor be in service as a pastor at the same time, and that the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor be in service as a assistant pastor at the time of requesting the submission of the curriculum and career certificate. In recognition of the foregoing history history in the U.S., the Pyang Labor Association decided to grant the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor the qualification as a pastor belonging to the Defendant and to approve the ice as a assistant pastor of the ○○○○ School. On April 21, 193, the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor was inside the Defendant’

④ After the receipt of the above title, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was on the part of the Defendant’s overseas co-operation assistant, and was on the part of the Plaintiff’s church, the Plaintiff’s assistant was on October 2005, and was on the part of the Defendant’s overseas co-operation assistant, and was on the part of the Plaintiff church.

(B) Determination

According to Article 26 (1) 2 and Article 38 of Part II of the religious order Constitution, Article 16 (4) and Article 28 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Constitution, in order to become a pastor belonging to the defendant, a person who has at least two years of experience in trade after graduating from the graduate school directly operated by the defendant, and as above, a person who has at least two years of experience in trade means a person who has submitted evidentiary documents for at least two years of experience in the former president issued by the chairman of the party, and a candidate is a person who has at least two years of experience in the former president and is under the guidance of the union member in the course of performing his duties. Furthermore, according to the statement in subparagraph A-1 of Article 41, the committee established by the defendant shall recognize that the meaning of a person who has experience in trade for at least two years in the religious order constitution around March 26, 201 is not limited to the member of the branch church (issuance of the party chairperson). According to the above provisions and the interpretation of the above provisions, a person who has been subject to the previous candidate member.

In light of the above provisions of the religious order constitution, the plaintiff assistant intervenor was dispatched to the △△△△△△ church located in the United States, which is a branch branch church belonging to the defendant, and went on from the △△△△△△△ church located in the United States, for more than two years. At the time of the above case, ○○○ church head recognized the above career as the career of not less than two years, and requested the above work experience, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff assistant intervenor falls under a person with a career of not less than two years of full-time death. Even if the defendant assistant intervenor did not go on the history of full-time death in the branch church belonging to the defendant branch church belonging to the Republic of Korea, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff assistant intervenor merely did not meet the qualification of a pastor as provided for in the religious order constitution or the regulations on the implementation of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

In addition, demanding the experience of the former History as above is for the purpose of verifying the experience in trade before serving as a pastor. However, for about 18 years until the judgment invalidating the resolution of this case becomes final and conclusive after the receipt of the case, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor went to the △△ Dol branch and the Plaintiff’s gathering and verified his experience. As such, even though the failure of the Plaintiff’s transfer to the Defendant branch church affiliated with the Republic of Korea by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor to the Defendant branch church affiliated with the Republic of Korea violates the qualification requirements prescribed in the religious order constitution, the above defect was sufficiently cured at the time of the judgment invalidating the resolution of this case.

However, in light of the above legal principles, the state of the trial of the general assembly, even though the intervenor did not lose his or her right to defense against the defendant's previous position in the branch church for the 18-year period, and the status of the plaintiff's delegate for the above 7-year period. This is not only the fact that the plaintiff's right to defense against the defendant's previous position was clearly invalidated but also the defendant's right to defense against the defendant's previous position in the religious order's religious order's new position as a non-permanent assistant to the plaintiff's previous position in the court of law, but also the plaintiff's previous position in the religious order's new position as a non-permanent assistant to the non-permanent branch church's non-permanent position as a non-permanent assistant to the non-permanent branch church's non-permanent position as a non-permanent assistant to the non-permanent branch church's non-permanent position as a non-permanent assistant to the plaintiff's previous position in the religious order's non-permanent branch church's non-permanent position.

(d) Claim to nullify the invalidity of a judgment of invalidity of the second ice approval resolution.

(1) Facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence, 9, 15, and Gap evidence 10-1 through 4:

(A) At the time of the participation of the Plaintiff church, the Plaintiff Intervenor was a U.S. citizen with the authority to view the Plaintiff church as a pastor. Nonparty 3, who was the temporary chairperson of the Plaintiff, notified the Plaintiff’s Intervenor that it is possible to give up the U.S. citizen rights and obtain Korean nationality. The Plaintiff Intervenor promised to waive the U.S. citizen rights and acquire Korean nationality after two to three years on the ground that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was a person who was the U.S. citizen and was preparing for the U.S. Army Academy among his children.

(B) Even with the knowledge that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is a U.S. citizen, the Plaintiff’s party council passed a resolution to see the Plaintiff’s Intervenor as a delegated pastor. On July 24, 2005, at the Plaintiff’s joint council held on July 24, 2005 to Nonparty 4, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor expressed that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is a U.S. citizen, and did not raise an objection thereto.

(C) At the 168 No. 168 Union (O. 17, 2005 to Oct. 18, 2005) decided to approve the appointment of the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor as the delegated pastor by the Plaintiff after reporting all the documents attached with a copy of the report report card of a foreign nationality Korean of the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor to the political division of the union.

(D) On June 8, 2011, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor filed an application for restoration of the Republic of Korea’s nationality, and restored the Korean nationality on August 10, 201, and continued the procedure for waiver of the U.S. citizenship.

(E) At the 96th General Assembly (from September 23, 2011 to September 26, 2011), one of the new religious orders, the Korean Association passed a resolution to grant not only the right of foreign permanent residents and the right of voting rights of the church, the right of voting rights of the union and the general meeting, but also the right of election.

(2) Determination

As seen earlier, the judgment that invalidated the second ice approval resolution is invalid as the grounds for invalidation of the above ice approval resolution of the Bupyeong-gu Council, 1) the invalidation of the said ice approval resolution and 2) the U.S. citizen with the right to use ice approval resolution.

(A) However, the invalidation of the judgment of invalidation of the instant inland water resolution is null and void due to procedural defect and substantial deviation and abuse of discretionary power. Therefore, the deprivation of the status as a delegated wooder on the ground that the judgment of invalidation of the instant inland water resolution had no effect on the Plaintiff’s Intervenor among the judgment of invalidation of the second Cheong-ice approval resolution is null and void as it result in a significant violation of the concept of justice.

(B) Furthermore, we examine the part of the judgment that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s motion approval resolution was invalid on the ground that the Plaintiff’s motion is a U.S. citizen.

According to Articles 6, 163, and 164 of Part III of the Constitution of a religious order, the defendant borrowed the current positive laws so that the effect of the resolution may be invalidated by a lawsuit seeking nullification of the resolution if the contents of the resolution violate significantly and clearly the Constitution or the implementation rules of the Constitution, without limit of the filing period, and if the procedures and contents of the resolution violate the Constitution or the implementation rules of the Constitution, even if they violate the procedures and contents of the resolution, it shall be limited to the filing period (within 60 days from the date of the resolution) and shall be invalidated by a lawsuit for revocation of the resolution if the procedures and contents of the resolution violate the Constitution or the implementation rules of the Constitution or the Constitution, even if they violate the procedures and contents of the resolution, it shall be limited to the cases where the resolution becomes null and void by strictly limiting the filing period (within 60 days from the date of resolution).

However, there is no provision that foreign citizens would be able to leave the above branch church under the Constitution or the implementation rules of the Constitution, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the resolution of the Bupyeong Labor Association approved by the plaintiff as the delegation pastor of the plaintiff cannot be violated by the defendant's Constitution or the implementation rules of the Constitution. Furthermore, it is reasonable to interpret that the resolution that foreign citizens' authorities among the pastors belonging to the defendant in the 69th and the 87th general assembly could not leave the public office, under the premise that the foreign citizens' right to leave the public office can become the defendant's pastors and the general assembly's right to leave the public office. Even if the above resolution of the 69th general assembly and the 87th general assembly cannot be viewed as violating the plaintiff's rules, it is difficult to view that the above resolution of the 60th general assembly cannot be seen as violating the plaintiff's right to leave the public office's election since it does not constitute a resolution of the general assembly or the rules of the general assembly.

As seen earlier, limiting the grounds for dispute over the validity of the resolution of the Council to cases where it violates the Constitution or the implementation rules of the Constitution and the stability of the collective law of the church is to abide by the resolution of the Council and the stability of the collective law of the church. The approval of the foreign citizens as the delegation pastor of the branch church is not contrary to the Constitution or the implementation rules of the Constitution, but it cannot be deemed as a violation of the Constitution or the implementation rules. Thus, even though the defect cannot be deemed as a significant and obvious reason for invalidity of the resolution, the second decision that invalidated the resolution of the approval of the ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice iceing out of the provisions on the limitation of the filing period and the reason for the violation, it shall be deemed that

E. Verification of the representative status of the Plaintiff

In accordance with the procedure of hearing under the constitution of a religious order, the intervenor joining the defendant, who is a pastor belonging to the defendant, was absent from the plaintiff's office on October 17, 2005 due to the resolution of hearing of the plaintiff's party and joint council, and the resolution of hearing of the Bupyeong Labor Council to which the plaintiff belongs on October 17, 2005, and the judgment of invalidity of the resolution of the invalidation of inside water of this case and the judgment of invalidity of the resolution of hearing of the first and second hearing approval is both null and void, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the status of representative against the defendant.

Therefore, it is clear that the representative of the plaintiff (a delegated pastor, a co-member, and the president of the party) is still the supplementary intervenor of the plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and each of them is accepted.

Judges Kim Sung-dae (Presiding Judge)

1) It refers to the authority to collect and examine evidence at the conference for those who are dissatisfied with the doctrine or who illegally committed an unlawful act in the course of a road, and it is derived from the fact that the Yusm Psm Congress recorded in Chapter 15 of the Private Road Operation Act consists of private roads and roads.

2) At the time of the challenge, or in the case of a church, the primary person is aground on the personal head of the new person.