Whether a church can be changed if there is a member who has not participated in a resolution.

The meaning of the Constitution that all citizens have freedom of religion includes the freedom of the minority members to oppose the majority members of a church, even though some members of a church have passed a resolution to be bound by the other members, so even if all members of a church have passed a resolution to leave the church or to join the church in the joint council in which they have not been present, they cannot be regarded as the total members of a church, and therefore the church's dissolution cannot be changed.

Article 16 of the Constitution, Article 275 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant Diplomatic Association

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na2801 delivered on March 20, 1978

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below is without merit that the representative of the above religious order is divided into the joint assembly of the 1959 and that the non-party 1 et al. of the above religious order divided into the joint assembly of the 1959 and that the defendant church originally started as a branch church belonging to the 5th association, the 45 members of the 1st association who are currently on the 5th association and were not on the 4th association of the above religious order after the establishment of the defendant church, and the 1st association of the 1st association and the 5th association members who were on the 1st association of the above 7th association and were not on the 5th association members of the above 1st association and were on the 5th association members of the above 1st association, and the 5th association members who were on the 5th association members of the defendant church who were on the 1st association and were on the 5th association members of the above 1st association and were on the 5th association members of the defendant church who were on the 2th association.

2. Article 16 of the Constitution provides that all citizens shall enjoy freedom of religion, thereby guaranteeing the freedom of religion as fundamental rights of citizens. That is, a citizen, who is the content thereof, is free to possess or possess a religious belief. As such, choice of a certain religion or religious worship in another specific religion may be freely permitted, and such freedom may be restricted by the law enacted for national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare (see Article 32(2) of the Constitution).

Therefore, it is freedom to bind a branch church to another branch church due to the majority of the members who have joined the branch church or who have belonged to the previous branch church, or who have left the branch church or who has joined the previous branch church, or who have joined the branch church, or who have joined the branch church, but because of the majority of the members who have organized the branch church, it is also freedom to bind that branch church to another branch church, and even though some of the members of the branch church have decided to bind that branch church to another branch church or the branch church, it is also freedom to remain in the previous branch church or the branch church because they have not opposed to it and has not joined it.

In addition, as long as a branch church belongs to a specific church freely selected, it is not easy to conclude that rules such as the doctrine or consciousness of that church.

With respect to this case, about April 1976, there are 45 members who take over the registered church of the defendant branch church around 1976, and that church belongs to the joint dissolution of the Korean Egym Association, and the president of the representative party belongs to the joint dissolution of the Korean Egym Association, which is determined by the judgment of the court below. According to the original decision, the joint council of May 5, 1976 of the so-called defendant church is convened by the non-party 2 and 3, who is the representative director, and the three-seven members who are the three-seven members.

According to the statement No. 5-3 and the purport of the parties' arguments, which are not disputed in the formation of the association, the joint council of the defendant church shall be convened by the chairperson of the church who is the representative of the church without any special reason, and the assembly convened as above cannot be called the joint council of the defendant church, and therefore, the matters resolved at the assembly shall not be related to the defendant church.

In addition, the members' joint members' 1976.7.10's 1976-7.10's 1976-7.10's 45 members' son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's Professor's 376 members'.

3. According to the records, the plaintiff filed an application with a witness or more in order to prove that the registration of ownership transfer of this case is null and void in the first pleading of the court below, and the court below held that the plaintiff's assertion is without any evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion if the examination is completed without permission.

According to the circumstances of the lawsuit, since it is evident that the court of first instance concentrated on the examination of whether there is a reason for a retrial, the plaintiff who lost at the court of first instance cannot be found to be late at the time when the plaintiff tried to prove the facts of the cause of the claim in the first pleading of the court of first instance, and the above evidence as evidence in the record should be the only part of the facts of the cause of the claim, notwithstanding the fact that the court of first instance did not adopt or investigate such evidence, and there is no evidence to prove the facts, and the court of first instance cannot be found to be disadvantageously against the party who applied for evidence, as it is against the rules of evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal that discussed the above illegality. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)