(a)where a church is divided into two churches, the ownership of the church's properties and the method of managing and disposing of them; or the eligibility for parties to a lawsuit concerning the collective ownership property of a church;

(c) In a case where the church is divided into two churches, whether the lawsuit seeking the registration of ownership transfer in the joint name of the two churches after the division and the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the collective ownership of the members of the two churches is legitimate

(a)in case where a church is divided into two churches, the properties of the church shall belong to the collective ownership of the members at the time of the division, and the management and disposition of the properties jointly owned shall follow a resolution of that general meeting;

B. The lawsuit concerning the collective ownership property of a church shall be limited to the name of the church itself, which is an unincorporated association, or to the whole members of the church as a party, and in the latter case, it shall be a requisite co-litigation.

(c) In a case where a church is divided into two churches, one of them shall be jointly owned by the members of the previous church at the time of the division, and in order to publicly announce that the land of the previous church is jointly owned by the members of the previous church, the first preliminary claim shall be filed with respect to the land in the name of the two churches after the division and the second preliminary claim shall be filed with respect to the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the two churches, and if the land is requested to confirm that the land is jointly owned by the members of the two churches after the division, the claim shall be an inappropriate lawsuit which is not equipped with the standing

(b)Article 275 and Article 276(b) of the Civil Procedure Act;

A.C. Supreme Court Decision 94Da21733 delivered on February 24, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1430). Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23561 delivered on December 7, 1990 (Gong1991, 436) 91Da1226 delivered on January 19, 193 (Gong1993Sang, 712). (b) Supreme Court Decision 91Da41507 delivered on February 28, 1992 (Gong192, 1165) 92Da50232 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1785)

[Defendant-Appellee] The Korea National Assembly of the Republic of Korea (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 94Na18491 delivered on April 20, 1995

The appeal on the primary claim is dismissed.

The part concerning the first and second preliminary claims among the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the plaintiff's lawsuit on that part is dismissed.

The costs of appeal and the costs of appeal as to the dismissal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the primary claim.

The court below determined that the previous church's new church's properties did not belong to the above 19-year church and that the previous church's properties did not belong to the above 1-year church, and that the previous church's properties did not belong to the above 1-year church's new church's properties should be jointly owned by the non-party 9-year church's new church's properties, and that the previous church's properties should be jointly owned by the non-party 1-the-party 9-Seoul church's new church's properties should be jointly owned by the non-party 1-the-party 9-Seoul church's properties should be jointly owned by the non-party 1-the-party 9-party 1-the-party 1-party 1-party 1-party 1-party 1-party 9-party 1-party 1-party 9-party 1-party 1-party 9-party 1-party 1-party 1-party 3-party 1-party 1-party 9-party 1-party 1- his properties.

2. We examine ex officio the first and second preliminary claims added by the original judgment.

The lawsuit concerning collective ownership of the properties of a church shall be limited to the name of the church itself, which is an unincorporated association, or all the members of the church shall be the parties to the lawsuit, and in the case of the latter, it shall be a requisite co-litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2045,2046, Dec. 9, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 91Da41507, Feb. 28, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 92Da50232, May 24, 1994, etc.).

According to the grounds for the first and second preliminary claims of the plaintiff church added at the court below, the plaintiff asserts that the land of this case belongs to the collective ownership of the previous church members at the time of the division, and in order to publicly announce that the first preliminary claims are collective ownership, with respect to the land of this case, the plaintiff seeks to implement procedures for the registration of ownership transfer in the joint name of the plaintiff church and the new church at the same time, and with the second preliminary claims, the land of this case is to obtain confirmation of the collective ownership of the plaintiff church members and the members of the new church at the time of the division. Thus, the first and second preliminary claims of this case, which are sought by the plaintiff church composed of only part of the previous church members at the time of the division, shall be deemed to be unlawful as they are not equipped with the standing for parties.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the plaintiff's first and second preliminary claims based on the judgment of the court below that the first and second preliminary claims in this case are unlawful, and that the plaintiff's first and second preliminary claims in this case were judged as to the merits cannot be exempted from reversal. This part of the judgment of the court below is sufficient to see it pursuant to Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the part which dismissed the plaintiff's first and second preliminary claims in the judgment of the court below

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal concerning the main claim is dismissed, and the part concerning the conjunctive claim is reversed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)