Plaintiff 1 and 9 others (Law Firm continental, Attorneys Inn Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gender Equal (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 8, 2006

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Gahap67709 Delivered on February 3, 2006

1. The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiffs' selective claims added in the trial are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

selectively,

(a) Ascertainment that Plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are eligible for each election as the head of the Sejong Confucian Schools (Silsan-dong 566), and as the auditor (auditor) by Plaintiff 10, respectively.

B. On May 16, 2005, the defendant confirmed that the decision to refuse the appointment of executive officers of the Hanyang Confucian Schools against the plaintiffs was null and void (the plaintiff added the "request to confirm the invalidity of the decision to refuse the appointment of executive officers of the Samyang Confucian Schools" as stated in the above paragraph (B) as of May 16, 2005.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2, 2-3, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-5-1, 5-6, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 8, 9-1, 12, Gap evidence 13-1, 2, 3, 14-1, 14-1, 2, 15-1, 3, 16-1 through 18, Gap evidence 2-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-1, 1-1, 3-1, 3-1, 4-2, 1-1, 3-1, 3-1, 7-1, and 1-2-1, 3-1, 1-3 evidence

(a) The status and relationship of parties;

(1) The defendant is an association that is not a legal entity that has an advisory body such as the chief officer, the board of education, the board of education, the board of worships, the board of worships, and the board of directors, the director general, and the board of directors, the board of directors, the board of directors, and the board of directors, the board of directors, the board of directors, the board of directors, the board of directors, the board of directors, the board of directors, and the board of directors and the board of directors, such as officers of the senior citizens' meeting, and the senior citizens' meeting.

(2) Under the Defendant’s jurisdiction, the Confucian Schools established for each region with the purpose of the Do’s declaration of Do’s character and ethics, the development of culture and the interest in good morals. Individual Confucian Schools have institutions such as Do’s representative, Do’s principal in charge of the affairs of the Confucian Schools under the direction of Do’s principal, Do’s principal in charge of the affairs of the Confucian Schools, Do’s principal in charge of the audit of the revenue and expenditure budget and other property management and the status of the management of affairs of the Confucian Schools, and the auditor, etc. of the affairs of the Confucian Schools.

(3) Meanwhile, apart from the Defendant, the head of the Sung Fungn Pungn Association (hereinafter “the head of the leading group”) is established separately from the Defendant, for the purpose of the promotion of Confucian Schools and Related Organizations, securing and operation of the district office of preliminary education, and the political, economic, social, cultural guidance ideology through field research, and the inheritance and development of traditional culture. The head of the leading group is an affiliated organization of each sub-chapter organized in the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, Si, Do, Si, Gun, Si, Gun, Gu, and Do units, and each sub-chapter organized in the district office, Eup, Myeon, and Dong units, and each sub-organization is closely related to the Defendant as organized and operated in response to local Confucian schools under the Defendant’s jurisdiction.

(4) The three Confucian Schools, which are local Confucian Schools under the defendant's jurisdiction, was established in 1398 and operated in the jurisdiction of Samyang-gun in Gangwon-do (the municipal district of Samyang-gun was later changed to Samyang-si, dong-si, Taecheon-si). Accordingly, the head office of the excursion ship/ferry was established in response to this situation, and the head of the excursion ship/ferry was established in the jurisdiction of the third party branch, and the third party branch was established in the territory of the third party branch, in accordance with the name of the Eup/Myeon of the Gu Samdong-gun, the Samyang-gun branch, the Seonam branch, the Dosan branch, the Dosan branch, the Dosan branch, the Dosan branch, the Dosan branch, the Yellow branch, and the Seosan-gun branch of the Gu Sejong-gun branch was established in the administrative district due to the change in the administrative district. The Samyang-gun branch was also incorporated in the area of Sejong-si, the Sejong branch of the Dong-gun branch, the Sejong branch of the new branch of the Dong.

(5) The plaintiffs live in the North-Eup area (which was incorporated into the East Sea, newly established April 1, 1980 due to administrative change) in Sejong-gun.

(b) Procedures for appointing executives of three or more Confucian schools;

(1) According to the organization of three Confucian Schools, three and more auditors are officers of the three Confucian Schools (Article 2-1). The heads of three and more Confucian Schools are recommended by the number of persons who are assigned in advance at the twelve branches having the jurisdiction of the inducement branch (Articles 2-2 and 16). In order to recommend nine persons from among the heads of three and more Confucian Schools (Article 2-2 and Article 16), the organization is assigned to recommend nine persons from among the heads of three and more Confucian Schools (Article 2-1).

(2) According to the rules on the operation of the sexual spactic system and the sexual spactic system, the head of the local Confucian school provides that the head of the local Confucian school shall be elected by each of his/her Confucian school at the spactic meeting and shall be appointed through each City/Do Confucian school foundation (Article 20). Accordingly, the spactic spac spac spac spac spac spac spac spac spac spac spac spac spac spac s

(c) Establishment of Confucian Schools in the East Sea;

(1) On April 1, 1980, the Dong Sea was established by the incorporation of the Dongdong-gun and the Dongdong-gun, Gangwon-do Dong-gun (Therefore, from April 1, 1980, the above Dong-gun and the Dong-gun were excluded from the jurisdiction of the Dong-gun and the Gangwon-do Gun). Since April 1, 1980, persons who reside in the Dong-dong-gun, the Dong-gun and Dong-dong were enrolled in the Dong-gun, and people who reside in the Dong-gun-gun, the Dong-gun and Dong-gun were enrolled in the Dong-gun-gun, the Dong-gun and the Dong-gun and the Dong-gun and the Dong-gun and the Dong-gun and the Dong-gun and the Dong-gun and the Dong-gun and the Dong-gun and the Dong-gun and the Dong-gun and the Gu-gun and the Gu-gun and the Gu-gun and the Gu-gun were located in the Dong-gun and the Dong-gun and the Dong were newly established to the defendant from around April 1990.

(2) At the time of June 15, 1993, Nonparty 1 et al. found Nonparty 9 to be the president of the branch of the Gyeongdong branch consisting of the instant forests at the time, and established and operated the Young-gun, Samyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the Young-gun, Young-gun, which independently proposed that he would not participate in the establishment of the relevant local school. However, on July 4, 1993, Nonparty 1 et al. issued a notice to the relevant forests to the effect that he would not participate in the establishment of the relevant local school.

(3) Since then, Nonparty 1, etc. suspended the official discussion with the North Korean branch, and obtained permission to participate in the establishment of the Dong branch school only against the individual ties belonging to the Seongbuk branch, and as a result, around September 193, Nonparty 1, etc. received a written consent from 200 to the 25 general residents living in the North Korean branch to participate in the establishment of the Dong branch among the 11 forest and the 25 local residents living in the North Korean branch, and recruited 70 promoters with the written consent from 33 residents living in the Dong branch.

(4) After this, on September 11, 1993, the said 70 promoters held a general meeting of promoters for the establishment, promotion, and the formation of the establishment of the said Confucian Schools (hereinafter “the said 70 promoters’ general meeting”) and elected 11 members for the establishment of the said Confucian Schools at the same time, and organized the said 70 promoters for the establishment of the said Confucian Schools. However, prior to the said general meeting of promoters, the said 70 promoters were notified of the fact of holding the said meeting, the purpose of the general meeting, etc., and the said 70 promoters were not given notice or contact was not properly made.

(5) On September 11, 1993, the defendant deemed that the Dong Sea School was established through the General Meeting of Promoters, and approved the establishment on February 28, 1994.

(d) Circumstances after the establishment of a Confucian School in the East Sea;

Since the establishment of the same kind of Confucian Schools, the United States of the Dong-gu, which had been residing in the Dong-gu, Seodong-gun, Seogdong-gun, which had been affiliated with the previous Samdong-gun, including the plaintiffs, (hereinafter referred to as the "the United States of this case") asserted that the United States of the Dong-dong, who had been residing in the Dong-gun, Seogdong-gun, had established the same Do-dong-gun, and had been established through legitimate procedures and had been approved by the defendant, and that the said Do-dong did not participate in the activities of the Do-dong-gun, the United States of the case was continuously engaged in three times without being involved in the activities of the Do-dong-gun. A large number of the Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong.

E. Defendant’s refusal to appoint officers against the Plaintiffs

(1) On the other hand, with regard to this situation, the defendant, as an executive officer of the three-dimensional Confucian Schools which are interested parties, and the Gangseo-do Confucian Schools and the East Sea Confucian Schools, appointed the instant forests as the executive officer of the three-dimensional Confucian Schools, with the view of demanding them to rationally solve the problem in accordance with their local circumstances and practices, and on May 18, 200, only local residents may be appointed as the head of the district under their jurisdiction in the official sphere of May 18, 200, with the provision of Article 16 of the Confucian School Department Act, the term "the appointment of the head of the three-dimensional Seo-gun Branch and the head of the Samcheon-gun Seo-gun, which recommended the appointment by the

(2) Around December 26, 2000, on the ground that on the grounds that on the grounds that on the grounds that around December 26, 200, the Seongbuk Branch filed a lawsuit against the defendant and the president of the Korea Federation for the confirmation of the right to appoint the head (hereinafter referred to as the "first lawsuit") on the grounds that the head has the authority to appoint the head as much as the number of principal allocated in advance among the heads of the Samyang-gun-gun branch schools located in the Gangseo-gun branch school, the court of first instance accepted the entire request for the North branch meeting (Seoul District Court Decision 2000Da97125 delivered on November 2, 2001), but the appellate court affirmed the judgment on the lawsuit against the defendant on the grounds that the defendant cannot be deemed as an independent organization that established rules with the nature of an association and acts as an incorporated foundation, and that the appellate court did not have the ability to confirm the lawsuit against the general head, the appellate court rejected the judgment on the ground that it did not have any interest in the appellate court’s determination on the lawsuit against the defendant 2020.

(3) In addition, around March 31, 2001 and April 12, 2002, three Confucian Schools recommended the Defendant to appoint the former principal and the head of the relevant forest assembly. However, the Defendant refused to appoint the former principal and the head of the Samyang-gun, Samyang-gun, the head of the relevant school recommended by Samwon-gun, which was refused to appoint the former principal and the head of the relevant school, and on the ground that 19 persons of the Gu Samyang-gun, Samyang-gun, the head of the relevant school and the head of the relevant school were qualified to be elected as the former principal and the head of the relevant incorporated school around November 26, 2002, the Seoul High Court sentenced the Plaintiff to the judgment of 205 of the judgment of the first instance court (the first instance court of October 17, 2002) on the ground that the former principal and the head of the relevant school were not competent to be an incorporated foundation, the second instance court did not directly file a lawsuit against the Defendant 201, the second instance judgment against the Plaintiff 25.

(4) Meanwhile, as seen above, the Defendant rendered a favorable judgment on the Plaintiff’s entire winning of the second lawsuit, and also accepted the recommendation of the principal and the head of the Gu North-Eup’s dwelling forest where the appointment was refused.

(5) After that, on March 29, 2005, on April 8, 2005, Nonparty 10 recommended the Defendant to appoint Plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 as the head of the three-party Confucian School and the auditor of the three-party Confucian School, respectively. On May 16, 2005, the Defendant notified the Defendant to the effect that on May 16, 2005, the three-party Confucian School resided in the East Sea as an officer of the three-party Confucian School and did not appoint the Plaintiffs as the executive officer of the three-party Confucian School.

(f) Provisions concerning the establishment and jurisdiction of Confucian schools;

In addition, Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the Organization Management Regulations (amended by April 25, 2000) of the Organization Management Regulations (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1688, Apr. 25, 2000) of the Organization of the Organizational Headquarters of the Organizational Headquarters of the Organizational Headquarters of the Dong Sea School provides that "the branches and sub-branches may be organized according to the approval of the General Headquarters for each administrative district, considering the circumstances of the organization of various levels of branches and sub-branches."

(g) Cases similar to changes in administrative districts;

On March 1, 1995, the Gyeonggi-do Mapo-gun was incorporated into Incheon Metropolitan City due to the change of administrative district, and there was a problem of whether the above Mapo-do Mapo-gun should be changed to the Mapo-Mapo-si having jurisdiction over the new administrative district in the Kimpo-gun, which had previously been in his jurisdiction. In this case, the Mapo-si did not have any provision regarding the jurisdiction of the Mapo-si, and the Mapo-si was also managed as the Mapo-si in the area demarcated as at the time of the establishment of the Mapo-si regardless of administrative district, and the defendant also approved this.

2. Determination as to the claim for verifying the qualifications of the head of three or more Confucian Schools (the claim stated in Section A)

A. Main Safety Defenses

The defendant is seeking confirmation as to whether or not the plaintiffs have general and abstract right to be audited or not, and it cannot be deemed that specific disputes have been mature because it does not seek confirmation as to specific legal relations at a certain time. The general and abstract head of the third Confucian School or the right to be audited by the defendant is not based on the basic legal relations between the plaintiffs and the defendant, but determined according to the interpretation of the internal regulations of the relevant organizations such as the third Confucian School and the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of qualification does not have a benefit of lawsuit.

B. Determination

However, it is difficult to view that there is a legal interest immediately determined by a judgment because the subject of confirmation sought by the plaintiffs is not a legal relation surrounding the appointment of the head or auditor of the plaintiffs at a specific time, but a general, abstract, whether or not the plaintiffs have the right to be dismissed by the head or auditor, and it is merely a specific dispute (the internal rules of each organization, such as the three-party Confucian School System, which serves as the basis for judgment, were amended in accordance with each prescribed procedure, and it is possible to change the contents in the future, and unless it is based on the specific dispute at a specific time, the appointment right of the head at a certain

In addition, since the general and abstract head or the right to be audited by the plaintiffs does not arise from the basic legal relations between the plaintiff and the defendant, but is determined according to the interpretation of the internal regulations and the friendly relationship between the above provisions, the claim for confirmation eventually leads to the dispute over the validity of some of the provisions, so there is no benefit to seek a lawsuit independently (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da65899, Nov. 12, 2004, etc.).

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of the plaintiffs' qualifications is unlawful.

3. Judgment on May 16, 2005 as to the claim for the confirmation of invalidity of the decision to refuse to appoint executives of the Samyang Confucian School (claim b)

A. The defense and judgment of this case

(1) This safety defense

The defendant's selection and appointment of the plaintiffs as a legitimate head or auditor shall be within the forest organization as belonging to the defendant's inherent authority under the Confucian School Organization. Therefore, it shall not be the subject of litigation. In addition, the term of office of the head of the three Confucian School Organization is only one year, and the term of office of the head of the plaintiffs other than the plaintiff 10 shall be from April 1, 2005 to April 16, 2006. The decision to refuse appointment of the head of the above plaintiffs as of May 16, 2005 does not have a benefit of confirmation. Meanwhile, in the case of the Confucian School whose appointment is requested by the defendant as an officer, the person who is recommended to appoint the plaintiffs as the defendant shall be entitled to convene the forest general meeting. Accordingly, the individual recommended as an officer of the three Confucian School is not entitled to seek nullification of the decision to refuse appointment against the defendant directly. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for such part is unlawful.

(2) Determination

(A) First, as to whether the above part of the plaintiffs' claim can be a subject of dispute, the defendant, who has the authority to appoint officers of the national individual Confucian Schools, did not appoint the plaintiffs as officers of the three Confucian Schools, thereby affecting the status that the plaintiffs can enjoy as officers in the three Confucian Schools. Whether the plaintiffs can enjoy the status of officers in the three Confucian Schools is a dispute with legal interest. Thus, the above part of the dispute concerning appointment that can enjoy the status in such three Confucian Schools cannot be concluded to be a dispute within the forest organization that deviates from the subject of judicial review.

(B) Meanwhile, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-3, and 3-1, the term of office of the head of three Confucian Schools is one year, and the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff Nos. 10 are appointed as the head of three Confucian Schools, the term of office is from April 2005 to April 2006. Thus, although the term of office of the plaintiffs as the head of three Confucian Schools has expired, it is recognized that the term of office of the principal of the three Confucian Schools has expired, under the statement Nos. 1-1, and five years have passed since he was residing in the district under his jurisdiction and was over 60 years old and passed since he was over 30 years old, and that the defendant's decision to refuse the appointment of the head of the three Confucian Schools is presumed to be the premise that the above decision to refuse the appointment of the head of the above 2nd School was null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da1860, May 18, 2000).

(C) On the other hand, in relation to the status of the executives of the three-class Confucian Schools, disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendant cause unstable about the status of the plaintiffs, and in relation to the defendant, it is judged that it would be an effective and appropriate means to determine the status of the plaintiffs in the relationship between the defendant and the three-class Confucian Schools. Therefore, it is reasonable to have a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the above rejection decision against the plaintiffs.

(D) Accordingly, we cannot accept the Defendant’s defense on the merits.

B. Judgment on the merits

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs unilaterally established the Dong-do Seog-gun's Seog-gun's Seog-gun's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong. The defendant approved such establishment and forced the plaintiffs to leave the Dog-dong school against their will and belong to the Dog-dong's Dog-dong. This is a convenient phenomenon that did not take into account the tradition and cultural characteristics of the Dog-dong, which infringes on the plaintiffs' religious and academic freedom, and the right to acquire the plaintiff's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Dog-dong's Do.

(2) The defendant's assertion

In this regard, the defendant asserts that "In accordance with the incorporation of the area of Samyang-gun in Gangwon-do and the area of Young-gun in Gangwon-do, the establishment of the Dong-do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do which has the meaning of the area of the Dong-do Do Do and the area of the Dong-gu Do Do Do Do Do Do, 70 was the promoters of the area of the Dong-gu Do Do, and that the establishment of the Dong-gu Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do which has jurisdiction over the whole area of the Dong-gu Do Do Do Do was legitimate." Therefore, the former Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do

(3) Determination

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, ① the Confucian School was established from the point of view to the point of view, and the establishment of the Confucian School was strongly promoted with the establishment of the Confucian School by the State policies. Each Confucian School has exclusive jurisdiction over each State. ② The establishment of the Confucian School was not established by the State during 1642 and 193 after the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Confucian School. Since the 1993, there was no clear provision regarding the jurisdiction of the Confucian School that may arise due to the establishment of the Confucian School and its dissolution (the State did not participate in the establishment of the Confucian School in connection with the establishment of the Confucian School, so that the State did not have authority over the establishment of the Confucian School, and that the Defendant did not have authority over the establishment of the Confucian School, which was not a juristic person but a juristic person, for the purpose of the establishment of the Confucian School and the establishment of the Confucian School, to the extent that it did not have authority over the establishment of the Confucian School. ③ Meanwhile, the Defendant, who was not a juristic person, has been given the authority to manage and supervise its individual religious Association.

However, even though the defendant was unable to reach an agreement on the change of jurisdiction between the three Confucian Schools which are the existing Confucian Schools and the Gangnam Confucian Schools, there was no discussion about the reduction of jurisdiction of the three Confucian Schools, it is recognized that the establishment of the Confucian Schools was approved, as seen above: ① the first Confucian Schools was established in each state of the past; ② the defendant was authorized to establish the Confucian Schools in the past; ② it is reasonable to view that the defendant was also subject to the above authority; ③ the defendant’s authority to manage and supervise the affairs of the individual Confucian Schools should be guaranteed to the maximum extent possible; ④ individual Confucian Schools and the defendant did not appear to have been given special “part of society” which is different from that of the general civil society, ⑤ the fact-finding and academic freedom should be guaranteed; ④ the defendant’s interpretation of the principle that it is necessary to consider that the defendant had considerable knowledge and experience as to the individual Confucian Schools, as much as possible in terms of the fact-finding and social norms of the defendant’s individual Confucian Schools as possible; and ④ the defendant’s interpretation of the principle of private law and public order should be interpreted.

Therefore, the above part of the plaintiffs' claim is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit concerning "the plaintiffs' request for confirmation of the qualifications for the head of Samyang Confucian School" and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiffs' lawsuit corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed. On the other hand, the plaintiffs' request for confirmation of the invalidity of the decision to reject the appointment of officers of Samyang Confucian School as of May 16, 2005 added in the court of first instance is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Lee Jong-ok (Presiding Judge)