[1] Method of determining church properties and form of attribution of church properties (=collective ownership of church members)

[2] Requirements for resolution to leave the religious order or change the religious order to which a church belongs (=the consent of 2/3 or more of the members with voting rights) and the burden of proving whether the resolution was lawful and effective

[3] The case holding that the above resolution of withdrawal is null and void on the ground that although the general assembly of members of a church passed a resolution to leave the religious order, there are serious defects in the convening procedure or the method of resolution, it cannot be known that the above resolution of withdrawal satisfies the quorum of 2/3 or more of the voting members

[4] Whether the trial expenses related to the qualification of pastors and lengths due to the church's disciplinary judgment are subject to judicial review (negative in principle), and the case where the court can determine the legitimacy of disciplinary action by the court's disciplinary judgment

[1] As long as a church exists as an association which is not a juristic person, in resolving disputes surrounding its legal relations by means of a lawsuit, the fact of a church shall be identified in accordance with the general theory of the Civil Code concerning an association which is not a juristic person, and the members shall own the church properties in the form of collective ownership, use them and gain profit from them.

[2] In a case where it is recognized that a branch church that 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 the changes in the rules of the branch church, such as the name and purpose of the branch church, and therefore, the withdrawal from the religious order or the change of the religious order requires a resolution with the consent of 2/3 or more of the members with voting rights in accordance with the amendment of the articles of the incorporated association. If the branch church that has joined the religious order does not reach 2/3 of the members with voting rights though the resolution on the withdrawal, etc. from the religious order was passed but the members with voting rights did not reach 2/3 of the members with voting rights, the identity of the previous church still remains in the previous religious order. Therefore, it shall be proved by the claimant that the withdrawal from the religious order or the resolution on the change of the religious order has been made lawfully

[3] The case holding that although the general assembly of members of a church passed a resolution to leave the religious order to which they belong, there is a serious defect in the procedures for convening the church or the method of resolution, it is null and void since it is impossible to ascertain whether the quorum of 2/3 or more of the members

[4] As a matter of principle, a church's disciplinary decision is merely an internal disciplinary measure against the trader, such as a pastor, etc., or against the members of a religious organization, in order to establish a religious doctrine and maintain order in the organization and religion, it is not subject to judicial review. Since its validity and enforcement are left to the internal autonomy of the church, it cannot be said that the time limit for a pastor or a teacher's qualification due to such disciplinary decision directly becomes the object of a court's trial. However, in case where there is a dispute over specific rights or legal relations in relation to the existence of validity of the disciplinary measure, and where it is necessary to determine the legitimacy of such disciplinary measure before determining the legitimacy of such a claim, the court shall determine the legitimacy of such disciplinary measure as long as the contents of such decision do not affect the interpretation of the religious doctrine.

[1] Articles 31 and 275 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 31, 40, and 42 of the Civil Act; Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 31, 40, and 42 of the Civil Act / [4] Articles 52 and 248 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 20 (1) of the Constitution

[1] [2] Supreme Court en banc Order 2004Da37775 Decided April 20, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 851), Supreme Court Order 2003Ma1321 Decided June 9, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1309) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 81Da276 Decided September 22, 1981 (Gong1981, 1429), Supreme Court Decision 94Da47193 Decided March 24, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1729), Supreme Court Decision 2005Da10388 Decided June 24, 2005 (Gong205Ha, 1254)

Applicant 1 church et al. (Law Firm Barun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Respondent 1 and 20 others

Seoul High Court Order 2005Ra988 dated January 23, 2007

All reappeals are dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined. 1. As to the assertion on the resolution of withdrawal of this case and its validity

As long as a church exists as an association which is not a juristic person, in resolving disputes over its legal relations in a civil lawsuit, the essence of the church shall be determined in accordance with the general theory of the Civil Act concerning an association which is not a juristic person, and the members shall jointly own the properties of the church and use and profit from the church. On the other hand, if it is recognized that a branch church which has joined a specific religious order has accepted the Constitution stipulated by the religious order as its own rules, the change of the religious order actually results in changing the rules of the branch church to the rules of the branch church. If the branch church has its own rules, the change of the religious order entails changes in the rules included in the rules of the branch church, such as the name or purpose of the branch church, and therefore, the change of the religious order requires a resolution by 2/3 or more of the members with voting rights in accordance with the amendment of the articles of association. If it does not reach 2/3 of the members with voting rights but who have agreed to leave the religious order, the previous church still belongs to the previous religious order, and therefore it shall be proved that it still maintains the religious order as its status of more than 2737.

The court below held that the plaintiff 1 church (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") is a branch church belonging to the Seoul Eastern Association (Seoul Eastern Association) on December 21, 2003 by obtaining the consent of the 2nd members of the 3rd members' meeting, and the remaining members of the 1st members' meeting who are not the representative of the 2nd members' meeting (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant members") were not present at the 5th members' meeting, and the non-applicant 1 member was not present at the 1st members' meeting and the non-applicant 2nd members' voting rights were not present at the 5th members' meeting, and the non-applicant 2th members' meeting was not present at the 5th members' meeting and the non-applicant 2nd members' voting rights were not present at the 5th members' meeting (hereinafter referred to as the "the non-party 1 member's voting rights were not present at the 5th members' meeting, but the non-party 2's voting rights were not present at the 2nd meeting.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of reappeal are different cases and are not appropriate to invoke the instant case.

2. As to the argument on the qualification of representative of the re-appellant church

As a matter of principle, a church's disciplinary decision is nothing more than the internal sanctions of a religious organization which is subject to disciplinary action by religious methods to establish a religious doctrine and maintain order in organization and religion, it is not subject to judicial review. Since its validity and enforcement are left to the autonomy inside the church, it cannot be directly subject to the trial of the court (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Da276 delivered on September 22, 1981, 94Da47193 delivered on March 24, 195, etc.). However, if a dispute over specific rights or legal relations exists in relation to the existence of validity of such disciplinary action, and it is necessary to determine the legitimacy of such disciplinary action prior to the determination of the legitimacy of such claim, the court's interpretation of the above disciplinary action should be decided as a court, unless the contents of such judgment extend to the religion doctrine (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da3828, Jun. 38, 2005).

In the court below, it is not appropriate that the above applicant non-applicant 1 has no authority to represent the applicant church on the premise that the decision is valid without examining and determining the propriety of the decision made by the Seoul East-gu Labor Association which dismissed the representative of the re-appellant church from the position of pastor 1, and that the decision is not valid. However, as seen earlier, as long as the decision on withdrawal in this case is null and void because it does not meet the requirements, the issue of whether the non-applicant 1 has the power to represent the applicant church shall not affect the result of the trial of this case, which rejected all the applicants' applications. The argument

3. As to the omission of judgment, etc.

Even if the resolution of withdrawal of this case is null and void, the applicants may seek a prohibition of obstruction of worship against the respondent in the position of the members of the church, or they asserted only in the grounds for reappeal that the respondent does not have the status and authority as a member since the division of the applicants church has been dissolved and the respondent does not have the status and authority as a member. Therefore, even if the court below did not decide on it, it cannot be said that there was an

4. As to the assertion on equity

It cannot be a legitimate ground for reappeal to criticize the judgment of the court below on the ground of the judgment of the court below or other court's decision in other cases.

5. Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)