The Gangnam-do Seoul High School Association (Law Firm Bobna, Attorneys Excellent-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Plaintiff’s Intervenor (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Cho Yong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff’s Intervenor-appellant)

The Assembly of the Korea Coast Guard General Assembly (Law Firm Yun Law LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 23, 2013

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Gahap13144 Decided October 11, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

A. On August 1, 2011, the Defendant confirmed that the judgment that “A resolution that the Pyeongtaekyang Society of the Korea Egyptian Association approved the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s request as the delegated pastor (from October 17, 2005 to October 18, 2005) is null and void.”

B. On December 8, 2011, the defendant confirmed that the judgment that "the resolution of a brut case against the plaintiff's Intervenor made at the No. 138 Labor Association ( April 21, 1993) is null and void." is invalid.

C. On December 23, 2011, the Defendant confirmed that the judgment that “A resolution that the Pyeongtaekyang Society of Korea would approve the Plaintiff’s appointment of the Intervenor as the Plaintiff’s delegate pastor (from October 17, 2005 to October 18, 2005) is null and void.”

D. The representative of the Plaintiff (a delegated pastor, a fence, and the president of the party) confirms that he is an intervenor assisting the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

The reasoning for this part of the court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” as the “Plaintiff church”; (b) the Defendant’s “Defendant” as the “Defendant’s general meeting”; and (c) the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff’s Intervenor” as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Intervenor”) under the seventh part of the judgment of the court of the first instance as it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, (d) the same is cited in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Determination on this safety defense

(a) Institution by a person without the power of representation;

1) Claims at the Defendant’s general meeting

In accordance with the first and second judgment invalidating the approval resolution by the defendant general assembly, which is the final judgment of the court of the defendant general assembly, and the judgment invalidating the approval resolution of the safe guard of this case (hereinafter “each invalidation judgment of this case”), it is confirmed that the resolution to accept a wood case and the approval resolution of the appointment of a delegated pastor is null and void. Thus, the plaintiff assistant is no longer in the position of a pastor who belongs to the general assembly of the defendant and the representative of the plaintiff church. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as a lawsuit filed by a non-representative

2) Determination

On the other hand, the plaintiff church filed the lawsuit of this case to dispute the validity of each nullity judgment of this case, and as seen later, each nullity judgment of this case has no validity as serious and clear defects, and thus, the plaintiff church still maintains the status as the representative of the defendant church as the plaintiff church.

According to each invalidation judgment of this case, the non-party 1 submitted a written withdrawal of lawsuit on August 22, 2013 as the representative of the plaintiff church, on the premise that the non-party 1 is not in the status of the representative of the plaintiff church. However, in the case of provisional disposition such as the suspension, etc. of the effect of the general assembly judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2012Kahap2049 applied by the plaintiff church and the plaintiff supplementary intervenor, the above court decided on November 7, 2012 to suspend the effect of each invalidation judgment of this case until the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive, to prohibit the temporary chairperson of the plaintiff church of this case or the substitute chairperson of the plaintiff church of the Jungyangyang Labor Council, according to Article 67 (3) of the constitution of the religious order, Article 16 (8) of the Enforcement Rule of the Constitution, the representative chairperson of the party council is not in the status of the non-party 1 to represent the plaintiff church, and it is not in the status of the plaintiff church.

Therefore, the above defense of the defendant general meeting is without merit.

B. Non-existence of benefit in confirmation of a judgment invalidating the first hearing approval resolution

1) Claims at the Defendant’s general meeting

Since the judgment of the court at the general meeting of the defendant, after the judgment invalidating the first approval resolution of the ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice was rendered again to confirm that the above decision of the court at the general meeting of the defendant was null and void, the first approval resolution of the ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice Appellant

In addition, since the plaintiff assistant intervenor was already deprived of his qualification as a pastor by the judgment on invalidation of the decision on invalidation of the safe guard resolution of this case, even if the judgment on invalidation of the decision on invalidation of the request of the plaintiff assistant intervenor is judged, the qualification as the chairperson of the plaintiff church cannot be granted. Thus, this part of the claim does not constitute an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the current rights or legal status and there is no interest in confirmation.

2) Determination

In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation in the lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as the confirmation judgment in removing the anxiety and danger (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010, etc.). In addition, even in the past legal relations, in cases where it has an impact on the present rights or legal status, and it is deemed as a valid and appropriate means to obtain a confirmation judgment in respect of the legal relationship in order to eliminate the risk or apprehension of the present rights or legal status (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da43580, Sept. 30, 2010).

However, as seen later, each of the invalidation judgments in this case has no significant and clear defects and still has the same effect, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor still is in the position of a pastor belonging to the Defendant’s general assembly. In addition, as long as the judgment of invalidation of the second ice approval resolution and the judgment of invalidity of the inside water of this case are not valid, whether the representative of the Plaintiff church is the Plaintiff’s Intervenor or the Plaintiff’s temporary president sent by the members of the ordinary union is determined by the validity of the judgment of invalidity of the first ice approval resolution, and thus, the claim for nullification of the judgment of invalidation of the first ice approval resolution is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the uncertainty and risk of the Plaintiff church’s autonomous composition of the representative and the status of the representative.

Therefore, the above defense of the defendant's general meeting is without merit.

C. Other party to the claim for confirmation of the representative status of the plaintiff church

1) Claims at the Defendant’s general meeting

Since part of the plaintiff church is the members of the plaintiff church, it is necessary to request the above members to confirm the status of the above members as a member of the plaintiff church.

2) Determination

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s general assembly declares the validity of the resignation of the Plaintiff church’s Intervenor and the invalidity of each of the instant invalidation cases where the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s qualification as a pastor belonging to the Defendant’s general assembly is denied. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s general assembly is the most effective and appropriate means for the Plaintiff’s Intervenor to seek confirmation of the status of the representative of the Plaintiff church as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s representative of the Plaintiff church, as the Plaintiff’s representative of the Plaintiff church.

Therefore, the plaintiff church has an interest in seeking confirmation against the defendant church's general assembly on the status of the plaintiff church's representative. Therefore, the above defense of the defendant's general assembly is without merit.

D. Non-existence of interest in confirmation of the judgment invalidating the invalidity of the instant wooden case

The defendant general assembly asserts that the parties involved in the judgment that invalidated the instant timber case are the defendant general assembly that declared the judgment that invalidated the judgment, the deliberation council that made the resolution, the plaintiff auxiliary intervenor, etc. who is qualified as a pastor through the secret resolution, and the plaintiff church basically is not a party involved in the above judgment that invalidated the instant timber case, and thus, the plaintiff church does not cause any present risk or apprehension in the rights or legal status of the plaintiff church, depending on the validity of the above judgment that invalidated the instant timber case, and therefore there is no interest in seeking confirmation to nullify the judgment that invalidated the resolution that invalidated the instant timber case.

According to the evidence No. 15 of this case, the plaintiff church and the defendant's general assembly are not in dispute with the fact that the plaintiff's intervenor cannot become the plaintiff's delegate of the plaintiff church due to the judgment invalidating the case of this case's title, and one of the reasons for the second judgment nullifyinging the invalidation of the approval of the plaintiff's ice ice 68th of April 21, 1993, the plaintiff's intervenor lost his status as delegate of the plaintiff church and temporarily sent the plaintiff church's meeting (the judgment invalidating the case of this case's title shall be deemed null and void since the judgment invalidating the case of this case's title shall be deemed null and void). Accordingly, the plaintiff's assistant's right to seek for the temporary cancellation of the plaintiff church's membership shall not only be infringed upon by the plaintiff church's delegation of the plaintiff church, but also by the plaintiff church's voluntary invalidity of the plaintiff church's right to seek for the invalidity of the plaintiff church's membership.

Therefore, the above argument at the defendant's general meeting is without merit.

E. Objects of religious freedom and judicial review

1) Claims at the Defendant’s general meeting

Each of the invalidation judgments of this case cannot be subject to judicial review on the following grounds, and thus, the claim for nullification thereof is unlawful.

A) Each invalidation judgment of the instant case is merely an internal decision made by a religious organization on the status as a pastor or delegate pastor of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and does not regulate the rights and obligations or legal relations of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor as a general national.

B) According to the constitution of a religious order, a pastor is a man in charge of informing the members of the end of the risk, which is the essence of the religious order of the defendant general assembly, and the issue of qualification requirements for a pastor or a delegating pastor is the qualification of a person who delivers the end of the risk. Therefore, the decision on this is closely related to the doctrine of the religious organization.

C) If an objective decision is made by an internal independent agency of a religious organization, the court cannot take the effect of the decision itself as the subject of judicial review in order to minimize any infringement on the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution.

2) Determination

A) The freedom of religious activities is guaranteed by the constitutional freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion. Accordingly, with respect to matters concerning the internal relations of a religious organization, a court, as a state agency, should ensure the autonomy of the pertinent religious organization to the maximum extent possible by failing to conduct substantive deliberation and determination, unless it regulates the rights and obligations or legal relations of a general citizen. However, unless there is an internal regulation within the religious organization which takes disciplinary action or sanction against a person who is a member of the religious organization, it is an act under the organization law that affects the status of individuals enjoying from a religious method, and does not necessarily exclude the subject of judicial review or deny the interests of the lawsuit. However, if a religious organization’s decision-making is closely related to the interpretation of religious doctrine or religion, it is desirable that a judicial involvement in such decision-making should be prevented (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32386, Oct. 27, 2011).

B) However, although each of the judgments in this case is stipulated in the third sphere of the religious order constitution, even according to the provisions of the religious order constitution, it is a kind of administrative litigation that is distinct from the disciplinary judgment even according to the provisions of the religious order constitution, and its purpose is to dispute the validity of the resolution of the church in violation of the Constitution or regulations, and it is different from the disciplinary judgment with the aim of preventing crimes from being committed in a non-performance, maintaining the trust and order of the church, urging the members of the church to hold a meeting, thereby allowing them to lead a correct religious life. In light of the fact, it is not a kind of judgment with the authority, but not only a kind of judgment with the authority but also an act affecting the autonomy of the branch church.

C) In addition, each of the judgments on invalidation of this case is the decision-making of the defendant general meeting on whether the plaintiff assistant intervenor, who participated in the plaintiff church as a delegate pastor, has the qualification as a pastor and a delegate pastor. According to the constitution of the religious order, the pastor in charge of the role as a teacher who helps the members at the end of the lease (Article 24 of Part II), but it is not directly related to the interpretation of the doctrine and religion, and in particular, it is difficult to see that the holding of the U.S. citizen's rights by the plaintiff assistant intervenor, who was the reason for the nullification of the decision on invalidation of the first and second request for ice approval in this case, is related to the interpretation of the doctrine and religion.

D) Furthermore, since the State is obligated to confirm and guarantee the fundamental human rights of individuals (Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea), in a case where civil litigation is instituted as to the infringement of fundamental rights between individuals, even though such a problem arises within a religious organization that should be guaranteed high autonomy in accordance with the principle of separation of religion and religion, the court, which is a State agency, cannot avoid the examination thereof.

However, in this case, the right to claim that the plaintiff church was infringed is the freedom to invite a member church, which is the basic autonomous organization of the members, to autonomously take charge of the establishment and establishment of the church, and such freedom of the branch church is the right to be protected from the higher organization of the same religious order, and the member of the church also has the right to manage and dispose of the church properties as the representative of the church, as well as the right to manage and dispose of the church properties, since it constitutes the freedom of religious activities, association and association of the members of the branch church and the branch church guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, it is subject to judicial review.

E) Therefore, the above argument at the Defendant’s general meeting is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Relevant legal principles

In light of the fact that the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and strictly separates religion and state function, the organization and operation of a religious organization shall be guaranteed autonomy as much as possible. Therefore, in order to determine that various resolutions or dispositions that affect an individual's status in a church are null and void as a matter of course, it is insufficient to say that there is a defect in the procedure to the extent that such resolutions or dispositions taken by a general organization, which is not a general religious organization, are null and void, and if such defect is very serious and it is left as it is, it would be a case that is clearly contrary to the concept of justice (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da63104, Feb. 1

Meanwhile, in a case where a new church with the substance of an unincorporated association is incorporated into a branch church that belongs to a specific religious order and forms a decision-making body and transfers a religious order as the representative of a branch church, there is a difference depending on the entity of the religious order, but in principle, a branch church is an unincorporated association that is independent from the religious order and the religious order is not only an organization of the branch church in a religious internal relationship. However, in a case where the branch church does not have its own rules or where it receives the Constitution prescribed by its own rules as an autonomous norm corresponding to its own rules, it shall be bound by the constitution of the religious order only to the extent that it does not infringe on the independence of the branch church or the essence of the religious freedom (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da37775 Decided April 20, 206).

Therefore, the judgment of the defendant's general meeting, which is a superior organization with regard to the validity of the appointment of the delegated pastors of the plaintiff church, which is a branch church, shall be null and void in cases where there exists a serious procedural defect so that the procedural norm prepared by the defendant's general meeting can be punished, or where its contents violate the concept of justice by infringing on the independence of the plaintiff church or the essence of

(b) Claim to nullify the invalidity of a judgment of invalidation of the first ice approval resolution

In light of the above legal principles, the resolution to approve the ice 2nd meeting of the Labor Relations Council, which is the object of the first resolution to nullify the ice 6th meeting, falls under the "resolution of the Council" as stipulated in Article 29 (1) of Part II of the Constitution of the religious order. Thus, the lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of the resolution can be brought to the trial division of the next regular meeting, which is the members of the Council, on the ground that not only the procedure of the above resolution but also the procedure of the resolution to confirm the validity of the 1st meeting, which is a member of the Council, is in violation of the Constitution or the provisions of Article 164 (1) of Part II of the Constitution of the religious order. However, since it is apparent that the above lawsuit is not a member of the Council of the first regular meeting, which is the branch church, and it is not a member of the Council of the first regular meeting, and it is still clear that the above resolution to invalidate the 1th regular meeting is not an object of the resolution to nullify the 10th meeting.

① Furthermore, it is interpreted to the effect that the Constitution limits the standing of the church to be a party to the lawsuit that disputes the validity of the resolution of the association is not only the horizontal autonomy among the council members in an equal status, but also the vertical autonomy of the council members in terms of enabling the decision-making of the council members to be carried out independently from the council members under the equal status. ② The meaning and scope of the right to leave the church in Articles 5, 61, 63 and 73 of Part II of the Constitution clearly define the meaning and scope of the right to leave the church and the members of the council who are in charge of administration and authority to leave the church, ③ The right to leave the church members of the association to leave the church shall be strictly limited to those who are not the members of the association, and ③ the right to leave the church members of the association to leave the church shall be deemed null and void by the separate resolution of the plaintiff church members, which is not only the representative of the association but also the non-party members of the association, which is the representative of the association.

C. Claim to nullify the invalidity of the judgment on invalidity of the Notarial Resolution of this case

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 21-3, 4, 24, and 15, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A) From January 1, 1991, the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor served as a former physician at the ○○ church, which is a branch church belonging to the Defendant’s general assembly, and passed the wooden accident around April 1991, and was dispatched from the ○○○○ church as the status of the △△△△△ branch church, and served as a former physician at the △△△△△△△ branch church located in the United States from July 16, 191 to April 16, 1993.

B) On April 1993, the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor submitted the certificate of career of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Council’s teachership Nonparty 8, which, at the time when the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor was hired as a assistant pastor from the ○○○ Council to the ○○○ Council as a assistant pastor. The Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor recognized that the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor was sent to the ○○○○ church as the ○○ Council’s pre-members and recognized the history of the ○○○ Council’s pre-members as the ○○ Council. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor prepared and submitted a resume that the Plaintiff’s assistant did not work as the ○○○ Council’s pre-members from January 1, 1991 to ○○○ Council’s pre-members.

C) After the resolution of the party meeting and the consent of the plenary session, the ○○○○○ Council submitted the curriculum and career certificate at the time of requesting that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor serve as a pastor at the Bupyeong-gu Council as well as approving and changing the appointment of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor as a vice pastor. In recognition of the foregoing history history in the U.S., the Pyeongtaekyang Labor Council decided to grant the Plaintiff’s Intervenor the qualification as a pastor belonging to the Defendant’s general meeting and to approve the appointment of the Plaintiff’s assistant master as the assistant master of the ○○○○ Council. On April 21, 1993, the Plaintiff’s assistant was inside the Defendant’s general meeting as a pastor belonging to the Defendant’s general meeting.

D) After the receipt of the above title, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was on the part of the Defendant’s general assembly, and was on the part of the Plaintiff as a member of the Plaintiff church, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was on October 2005, and was on the part of the Defendant’s general assembly, the Plaintiff’s assistant was on the part of the Plaintiff church as a member of the Plaintiff church.

2) Determination

A) The following circumstances can be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 7, 24, 26, 41, 69, and 70 (including virtual numbers).

(1) According to Article 26(1)2 and Article 38 of Part II of the religious order Constitution, and Articles 16(4) and 28(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, in order to become a pastor belonging to the defendant's general assembly, a person who has at least two years of experience in trade after graduating from the graduate school directly operated by the defendant's general assembly, and as above, a person who has at least two years of experience in trade means a person who has submitted evidentiary documents for at least two years of experience in full-time officers issued by the chairman of the church, and a candidate is a person who has at least two years of experience in trade and is under the guidance of the union members. In addition, on March 26, 201, the Constitutional Committee established a resolution that the meaning of a person who has experience in trade for at least two years under Part II of the religious order Constitution of the Republic of Korea is a person who has been issued with evidentiary documents for at least two years (the chairman of the party president).

According to the above provisions and the interpretation of the Constitutional Committee, if a person who is in the union and is subject to guidance by the union is qualified as a pastor if he has experienced the previous president for not less than two years, and the actual right to determine whether the above requirements are met is against the president of the party to which the candidate is a candidate who issues evidentiary documents about the career of the previous president, and there is no limitation that the previous president should be in the branch church to which the defendant's general meeting belongs.

In light of the above provisions of the religious order constitution and the interpretation thereof, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor served as a branch church belonging to the Defendant’s general assembly, and thereafter served as a staff member from the △△△△△△ Council located in the U.S. and served as a staff member for at least two years. At the time of the above case, ○○○ Council Head recognized the above career as a career of two years or more as a career of a career of a career of a career of a career of a career of two years or more, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor constitutes a person with a career of a career of a career of a career of two years or more. Even if the Plaintiff’s former director was not a career in a branch church belonging to the Defendant’s general assembly located in the Republic of Korea, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor merely did not meet the qualification requirements for a staff member as provided in the religious order constitution or the regulations on the implementation of the Constitution.

(2) Also, the purpose of demanding the experience of the former officer is to verify the experience of trade before the death as a pastor. However, since the Plaintiff’s Intervenor had been killed in the 18-year period from the date of the judgment invalidating the invalidity of the instant resolutions, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor had been sufficiently verified the experience of the Plaintiff’s work as a member of the Dolgggggggian association and the Plaintiff’s church during the 18-year period from the date of the judgment declaring the invalidity of the instant resolutions, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s failure of the former officer in the branch church belonging to the Defendant’s general assembly located in the Republic of Korea violates the qualification requirements stipulated in the religious order’s constitution, even if the Plaintiff’s failure of the former officer in the branch church belonging to the Defendant’s general assembly located in the Republic of Korea

(3) The reversal of the decision of the branch church and the association of the defendant's general assembly without a separate disciplinary procedure based on the facts of misconduct during the 18-year period after the receipt of the case is in violation of the independence of the branch church or the essence of the religious freedom of religion, as it is the result of denying the validity of the 18-year act committed by the relevant pastor, thereby endangering the existence of the branch church (in the above decision, not only deprivation of the status of the intervenor as well as the deprivation of the status of the intervenor as an individual pastor, but also the plaintiff church was actually divided, and there is a risk of dispute over the validity of the act committed by the intervenor as the delegate of the plaintiff church

(4) The Defendant’s general assembly provides a legal system by borrowing the positive law with respect to the defect, etc. of the resolution of the ○○ church. This seems to be due to the purpose of the Defendant’s general assembly, which establishes a church, rather than a political judgment, to make a fair legal judgment. However, the Defendant’s general assembly’s resolution was made at the request of the ○○○ church, and the right of substantial judgment on the experience in the trade of the previous ○○ church members to the ○○○ church. As the judgment invalidating the resolution of the instant case was invalidated, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s supplementary participant was denied the effect of the Plaintiff’s activities as a father of the ○○○ church. As such, even if the ○○○ church had an important interest, the lawsuit seeking invalidation of the ○○ church’s resolution was filed by Nonparty 7 with the head of the Plaintiff church, which is not directly related to the ○○ church members, and it cannot be deemed that a fair judgment was made because there was no opportunity

(5) In the event of an illegality in relation to a decedent, he/she may be deprived of his/her qualification through a disciplinary hearing, and in cases where a member of the Trade Association, other than the disciplinary procedure against a decedent, deprived of his/her qualification as a pastor due to a lawsuit seeking invalidation of a resolution passed by the National Assembly, he/she does not have sufficient right to pleadings and defense. As such, Article 4(1) of Part III of the Constitution of the Religious Order cannot be guaranteed to punish “the right to defend himself/herself after a trial is held.” In fact, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor appears to have not been given sufficient opportunity to vindicate himself/herself due to his/her failure to participate in the proceedings other than submission of documents

(6) Even though 18 years have elapsed since the receipt of a case, it is not possible to retroactively invalidate the qualification of a member church recognized by the Assembly of the branch church due to lack of qualification requirements due to the different interpretation of the trade experience between two years, and thus, the principle of trust is also against the principle of invalidation.

B) In light of these circumstances, the judgment invalidating the resolution of this case is to deprive the procedural right of defense, and there is a serious procedural defect in violation of the organization rules of the funeral school, as well as the substantial procedural defect, such as the freedom, autonomy and independence of the branch church, the occupation right of the pastors, and the principle of trust, and thus, there is a defect that significantly deviates from and abused discretionary power against the principle of justice. Therefore, it shall be deemed null and void as a judgment with serious and apparent defect contrary to the concept

(d) Claim to nullify the invalidity of a judgment of invalidity of the second ice approval resolution.

1) As seen earlier, the judgment invalidating the second Cheong-ice approval resolution is deemed as the grounds for invalidation of the above ice approval resolution of the Bupyeong-gu Council, and the Plaintiff’s assistant is no longer a member of the Defendant’s general assembly but a U.S. citizen against the resolution of the general assembly.

2) First of all, we examine the judgment on the invalidation of the resolution of this case, and the judgment on the invalidation of the resolution of this case is null and void because the judgment on the invalidation of the resolution of this case is serious and clear contrary to the concept of justice.

3) Next, we examine the part of the judgment that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s ice approval resolution was null and void on the ground that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is a U.S. citizen.

A) The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the contents of Gap evidence 8, 9, 15, 78, and 10-1 through 4, Gap evidence 88-1, and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(1) At the time of the appointment of the Plaintiff church, the Plaintiff Intervenor was a U.S. citizen with the authority to conduct the affairs of the Dolsan church. Nonparty 3, who was the temporary chairperson of the Plaintiff church, gave up the U.S. citizen rights and notified the Plaintiff Intervenor that it is possible for the Plaintiff’s Intervenor to obtain the U.S. citizenship, and the Plaintiff Intervenor promised to waive the U.S. citizen rights and to acquire the Korean nationality after two to three years on the ground that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor was a U.S. citizen with the right to participate in the U.S. Army, among his children, who

(2) While being aware that the intervenor of the plaintiff church is a U.S. citizen, the council members of the plaintiff church decided to listen to the plaintiff church as a member of the plaintiff church and a delegated pastor, and the plaintiff church's joint council which was held on July 24, 2005 to the non-party 4 of the chairperson of the council at the joint council of the plaintiff church which was held on July 24, 2005 to the non-party 4 of the plaintiff church, and there was no person raising an objection against this.

(3) At the time of the 168 Labor Association (O. 17 October 2005 to October 18, 2005), the Bupyeong-gu Labor Association decided to approve the appointment of the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor as the delegated pastor of the Plaintiff church after reporting all the documents attached with the report report card of a foreign nationality Korean of the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor to the political division of the labor union.

(4) On June 8, 2011, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor filed an application for restoration of nationality with the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and completed the procedure for acquisition of nationality by waiver of the U.S. citizenship on February 23, 2012 after the Plaintiff’s Intervenor restored the Republic of Korea nationality on August 10, 2011.

(5) At the 96th General Assembly (from September 23, 2011 to September 26, 2011), one of the new religious orders, the Korean Association passed a resolution to grant not only the right of foreign permanent residents and the right of voting rights of the church, the right of voting rights of the union and the general meeting, but also the right of election.

B) According to Articles 6, 163, and 164 of Part III of the Constitution of a religious order, the Defendant Assembly borrowed the current positive laws so that the effect of the resolution can be invalidated by a lawsuit seeking nullification of the resolution if the contents of the resolution violate the Constitution or the regulations, and if the procedures and contents of the resolution violate the Constitution or the regulations, without limit of the filing period, it shall be limited (60 days from the date of the resolution) if the procedure and contents of the resolution violate the Constitution or the regulations on the implementation of the Constitution but do not reach the degree of serious and obviousness. This shall be limited to the case where the resolution is invalid by a lawsuit seeking revocation of the resolution, with a limitation of the filing period (60 days from the date of the resolution). This shall be limited to the case where the resolution becomes invalid in the case of a lawsuit seeking nullification of the resolution which does not limit the filing period.

However, there is no limitation provision that a foreign citizen can not be viewed as a pastor from a branch church belonging to the defendant's general assembly in the Republic of Korea, so the resolution of the deliberation council on the deliberation of the deliberation council which approved the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor as the delegation pastor of the plaintiff church cannot be deemed to violate the Constitution or regulations of the defendant's general meeting.

In addition, the resolution of the general meeting of the defendant 69 and 87 on the resolution of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the defendant that a foreign citizen can not take the public office is reasonable to interpret that the foreign citizen's right restricts the eligibility for election to take the public office at the union or the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the defendant. Thus, it is difficult to see that the above resolution of the general meeting of the general meeting of the above 69 and 87 cannot be viewed as going against the resolution of the general meeting of the general meeting of the defendant. Even though the above resolution of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting of the general meeting is resolved that the resolution of the general meeting is not in violation of the Constitution or regulations, and it is possible to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Korea by a resolution of at least 2/3 of the members present at the general meeting of the general meeting of the defendant, since the above resolution of the general meeting was approved by two-thirds or more.

In addition, even if it is possible to dispute the validity of the resolution of the general assembly, it is difficult to view that the above facts revealed in the above facts as follows, namely, ① whether a foreign citizen is a member of the branch church, as an important factor that affects the conclusion of the branch church (the Korean Association of Germany grants the right to be elected at the branch church under the premise that a foreign citizen can become a member of the branch church), ② The Constitution of the branch church established by the religious order may be accepted as an autonomous norm corresponding to its rules, but it is bound by the Constitution to the extent that it does not infringe on the independence of the branch church or the essence of religious freedom, and it is obvious that the council of the plaintiff church, the joint council, and the members of the common association were aware that the plaintiff assistant is a citizen of the U.S., and that the resolution of the general assembly of the 20th National Assembly was invalid after the plaintiff's participation in the resolution of the 10th National Assembly, and that the resolution of the 1st National Assembly and the joint council of the 2nd National Assembly would be unlawful.

C) As above, although the resolution of the Bupyeong-gu Council which approved foreign citizens to leave the branch church as delegated pastors of the branch church, even if it violates the resolution of the defendant's general meeting, the defect cannot be deemed to be a significant and obvious violation of the Constitution or regulations, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a ground for invalidity of the resolution. Thus, the second decision which declared the invalidation of the resolution without going beyond the limit on the period of filing a lawsuit and the reason for the violation should punish the procedural requirements stipulated in the religious order constitution, and the decision which declared the invalidation of the resolution would substantially violate the concept of justice by infringing the independence, autonomy, or the essence of freedom of religion of the plaintiff church.

4) Therefore, a judgment invalidating the second ice approval resolution shall be null and void as a judgment with a very serious procedural or substantial defect.

E. Verification of the representative status of the plaintiff church

On October 17, 2005, in accordance with the procedure of hearing in accordance with the constitution of the religious order, the appointment of the council of the plaintiff church and the joint council, the appointment of the council of the council of the members of the council of the members of the council, the appointment of the council of the members of the council on October 17, 2005, and the fact that the judgment of invalidity of the above resolution of approving the appointment of the council of the members of the plaintiff church is all null and void.

Therefore, the representative of the plaintiff church (a delegating pastor, a member of the church, and the chairman of the church) is still an intervenor assisting the plaintiff.

F. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant’s general meeting

1) inside a religious order

The general meeting of the defendant, the appointment of the pastors of the defendant religious order and the appointment of the chairman of the church is the internal act of the defendant religious order, and in this regard, the members of the members' association have the power of representation. Since the proviso of Article 59(1) of the Civil Act can apply mutatis mutandis to the internal effect of the act of the representative of the church which violated the resolution of the general meeting as a non-corporate group, the resolution of the members' meeting of the members' general meeting on the qualification requirements of the chairman of the church is null and void inside the defendant religious order in accordance with the purport of the proviso of Article 59(1) of the Civil Act, and the resolution of the members' general meeting on the qualification requirements of the chairman of the church is naturally null and void in accordance with

Even though the plaintiff church, the plaintiff church, the members union, and the defendant's general assembly form a different religious order, it is an independent legal entity with an independent organization and decision-making body respectively, and it cannot be deemed that the members union represent the defendant's general assembly. Thus, the proviso of Article 59 (1) of the Civil Act, which regulates the representative of the juristic person and the juristic person, cannot be applied mutatis mutandis between the defendant's general assembly and the members' general meeting.

Therefore, the above argument at the defendant's general meeting is without merit.

2) Conditional approval

The defendant General Assembly asserts that the decision to approve the ice ice of the Bupyeong Labor Council is a kind of conditional approval on the condition that the plaintiff supplementary intervenor renounces the right to citizens of the United States and acquires Korean nationality, and that such conditional approval is null and void in itself due to the lack of grounds in the religious order constitution, as the plaintiff supplementary intervenor did not meet the above conditions, the decision to invalidate the ice ice ice ice

The following facts are found: (a) the council of the plaintiff church, as the plaintiff assistant intervenor, has given up the U.S. citizen rights and promised to acquire Korean nationality; (b) the council of the plaintiff church decided to leave the plaintiff church as the delegate pastor; and (c) decided to approve the council of the members of the Pyeongtaekyang Labor Association, as seen earlier; (d) however, such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the council of members of the Bupyeong Labor Association adopted the above council of members on the condition that the plaintiff assistant intervenor acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea; and (e) there is no other evidence to recognize the above council of members,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff church's claim shall be accepted in its entirety on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the appeal of the defendant general meeting is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sung Sung-song (Presiding Judge)