[1] The requirements for resolution to leave a church to move to a different religious order or to move to a different religious order, and in case where the members leave a church and lose their status as members of the church, the ownership of the properties of the previous church

[2] In a case where some of the members of a branch church that belongs to a religious order decide to leave the religious order and then establish a separate church and appoint a representative, whether the members of the newly established church possess the right to the properties of the previous church (negative)

[3] In a case where some of the members of a branch church that belongs to a religious order agree to leave the religious order and join a different religious order, but the resolution did not meet the requirements for resolution necessary for changing the religious order, the case holding that since the members who agreed to the resolution lose their status as members of the previous church and the right to the properties of the previous church, they cannot become the representative of the church

[4] Where the plaintiff and the independent party intervenor are the same person, whether the application for intervention by the independent party is legitimate (negative)

[1] Articles 31, 40, 42, 275, 276, and 277 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 31, 40, 42, 275, 276, and 277 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 31, 40, 42, 275, 276, and 277 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 79(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court en banc Order 2004Da37775 Decided April 20, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 851) / [1] Supreme Court Order 2007Ma224 dated June 29, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1176) / [2] Supreme Court Order 2003Ma1321 dated June 9, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1309)

Plaintiff 1 church (Law Firm Roof, Attorneys Kim Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 2 and three others (Law Firm Jins, Attorneys Kim Jae-py et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant church (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Choi Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 church (Attorney Jeong Jae-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2007Na1907, 7202 decided May 28, 2008

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff 1 church

A. As to the first ground for appeal

Based on the evidence duly admitted, the court below recognized the facts as stated in its reasoning, and judged that at least 31 members should be combined with the number of the plaintiff 1 church (hereinafter "Plaintiff 1 church"), a branch church belonging to the Korea Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical E) and the number of the members around October 8, 2006, and there is no violation of the law of incomplete deliberation as to the number of members asserted in the grounds for appeal.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the joint council of August 16, 2006 and six members of the plaintiff 1 church of the plaintiff 2 had been held without undergoing the convocation procedure for the members of the plaintiff church by the non-party 2 who belongs to the non-party 2 belonging to the Korean Empic Association of North Korea Nowon-gu et al., which is held by the non-party 1 church of the plaintiff 2. The court below is just in holding that there is no evidence to support that the joint council of August 16, 2006 was held in accordance with the provisions on the convocation procedure of the joint council of the plaintiff 5 and the Korean Empic Association of Korea et al. which are stipulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea et al. on August 16, 2006, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

If it is recognized that a branch church which has joined a specific religious order has accepted the constitution of the religious order as its own rules, the change of the religious order actually results in changing the rules of the branch church, and if the branch church has established its own rules, the change of the religious order entails changes in the matters included in the rules of the branch church, such as the name or purpose of the branch church, and therefore the withdrawal from the religious order or the change of the religious order requires a resolution by the consent of 2/3 or more of the members with voting rights, corresponding to the changes of the articles of the association. If some of the members leave the church and lose their status as members of the church, they shall lose their status as individual or collective members, or right to use and benefit from the properties of the previous church, and the previous church shall continue to exist with its members as its members while maintaining the consistency of the substance, and the properties of the previous church shall belong to the joint ownership of the remaining members of the church (refer to 70 or more of the members of the previous church, and the previous church shall establish a separate church, which shall not belong to the members of the previous church.

According to evidence duly adopted by the court below, 14 members including plaintiffs 2 et al., who left the above religious order after hearing them on August 22, 2004, who are non-party 2, who belongs to another religious order, and viewed separate worships, 14 members of the plaintiff 1 church including plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5 (hereinafter "the plaintiff 14 members of the church"), who oppose the disposal of the land and buildings of this case of the Dong-dong church, held a joint council on August 16, 2006, and elected plaintiffs 2 and 3 representatives for the lawsuit of this case. The above 14 members again did not agree with the resolution of the 14 members of the joint council on October 8, 2006 to leave the religious order, and were not entitled to the resolution of the 14 members of the plaintiff church, which is the plaintiff 1's members of the 3rd church, and were not entitled to the resolution of the 10 members of the 3rd church and the 10 members of the church.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by an independent party intervenor

Since an independent party intervention is a system that resolves the conflicting rights or legal relations between the three parties as a single judgment, if the plaintiff 1 church and the independent party intervenor are identical to the same party, an application for intervention by the independent party shall be deemed unlawful. In the same purport, the court below confirmed that the plaintiff 1 church claims of the plaintiff 1 church against the defendant on the premise that the plaintiff 1 church and the plaintiff 1 church are the same church, and confirmed that the plaintiff 1 church is seeking the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the land and buildings of this case against the defendant, and determined that the application for intervention by the independent party intervenor who asserted that he is the plaintiff 1 church is unlawful in light of the above legal principles, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding

In addition, since there is no dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship and there is no legal uncertainty (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da74130, Jan. 15, 2009). Accordingly, the court below's decision is just in accordance with the above legal principles to determine that the independent party intervenor's application for intervention to seek confirmation of ownership of the land and building in this case against the remaining plaintiffs is only seeking to cancel the registration of ownership transfer under the defendant's name, which is completed with respect to the land and building in this case, and return it to the plaintiff 1 church, on the same purport.

On the other hand, as long as the above judgment of the court below is just, among this part of the judgment of the court below, the remaining arguments in the grounds of appeal as to the part that judged that the application for intervention by an independent party is unlawful if the principal lawsuit is illegal on the grounds that there is no legitimate representation of the plaintiff 1 church or there is no qualification of the party. Therefore, it is without merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)