Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Buddhist Cho Jae-sung (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 27, 2006

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Gahap17769 Delivered on January 25, 2006

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant confirms that the plaintiff is in the position of being elected as a candidate at the plenary session of the plenary session of the plenary session of the plenary session of the plenary session of the plenary session of the plenary session of the plenary session of the plenary session of the plenary session of the plenary session of November 3, 203. The defendant will implement the procedure of appointing the plaintiff as the chief

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

(1) On July 15, 1953, the Plaintiff was studying in Japan by the Doggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggs

(2) The defendant is a religious organization that maintains the order of organization and religion by preparing autonomous rules, such as religious constitution, paper law, and religious organization that maintains the order of organization and religion. The defendant has a meeting of the senior council and the central council of the senior council, the executive council of the senior council, the executive committee of the senior council and the executive committee of the central and the executive committee of the central election management organization, and the central and sub-committee of the executive committee under the jurisdiction of the general secretary.

(b) Procedures for appointing the head office of the defendant Order;

(1) The Constitutional Court, which is the highest norm inside the defendant Religious Group, takes charge of the affairs of the principal of each school, directs and supervises the head office under its jurisdiction, shall be recommended by the plenary session of the head office of the relevant school, and the head of the relevant office shall be appointed without delay unless there is any ground for disqualification as provided by the Religious Act (see Articles 89 and 91).

(2) On the other hand, the Act on the Busan Central Assembly, a subsidiary corporation of the defendant branch office, provides that the plenary session shall convene a plenary session to elect candidates for the head office branch office, and the election-related affairs, such as convening meetings and registering meetings, shall be under the supervision of the National Election Commission (see Articles 6 and 7).

C. The Plaintiff’s sole registration of a candidate for chief executive officer

(1) On November 20, 1995, the literature of the employees of movable property held a literature general meeting (the literature general meeting) and held a literature general meeting as a general rule, and established a norm of the operation of a literature general meeting, the steering committee, and the religious affairs council with the content that the organization of the literature general meeting is to operate a criminal intent. The above operating norm determined matters concerning the recommendation to be widely known at the literature general meeting, and the mountain middle general meeting for the recommendation to be widely known, it is determined that the resolution of the literature general meeting is ratified.

(2) Upon the expiration of December 20, 2003, the term of office of the white shot (the name of law) which is the former widely known person of the fishery company, the election of the next widely known candidate was at issue. The shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot on October 8, 2003 decided that the s

(3) On the other hand, on October 9, 2003, the 14th party election commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Gangdong-gu election commission”) passed a resolution to convene a plenary session for the election of candidates for the head office of the Gu-gu branch office, and decided on November 3, 2003, and publicly announced the convocation date in the Bongdong-gu newspaper, which is the organ of the Defendant Religious Group, as the organ of the Defendant Religious Group.

(4) On October 23, 2003, the literature of the movable agent decided to organize a mediation committee for the simplification of widely known candidates by opening the literature general meeting, and the plaintiff was presumed to be a single candidate at the above mediation committee and registered independently on October 26, 2003, which is the closing date for the candidate registration (at the time, the plaintiff did not submit a certified copy of a family register that is required to be submitted at the time of the candidate registration, but demanding the submission of a certified copy of a family register at the time of the candidate registration becomes an important basis for ascertaining the candidate's nationality and identity).

(d) A resolution for cancellation of the plenary session in the area of the Clan;

(1) On October 27, 2003, the CMF reported the Plaintiff’s candidate registration to the National Election Commission under the CMF (hereinafter “Central Election Commission”), and on June 12, 1986, the CMF sent a statement to the effect that, on the 30th of the same month, the Plaintiff lost his/her nationality on June 12, 1986 (if the Plaintiff acquired U.S. nationality for the convenience of living in the U.S., but lost his/her nationality, but the Plaintiff lost his/her nationality on December 16, 2003 during the process of recommending the recognition of his/her nationality, and reported the recovery of nationality on December 22, 2003 by obtaining permission for recovery of nationality from the Ministry of Justice on December 16, 2003, it cannot be recognized that he/she is eligible for candidate registration.

(2) Accordingly, the non-party 1 [the name of law: omitted; the (name omitted) master, who was the chief secretary of the office of general affairs of the senior executive officer, prepared a public letter in the name of the chairman of the central office of the senior executive officer to the effect that the non-party 2 (the title of law: the death penalty and the death penalty of the senior executive officer) who was a senior executive officer of the senior executive officer, together with the plaintiff, could not be recognized as the plaintiff's candidate without the prior consent of the chairman of the school chief executive officer in accordance with the ordinary public document preparation procedure on October 31, 203, and sent it to the central office of the senior executive officer.

(3) However, on November 1, 2003, the Chon Line accepted the decision of the Chon Line with the consent of four of five members of the Chon Line, and cancelled the convocation of the Chon Line scheduled on November 3, 2003, and subsequently passed a resolution to reconven the Ch on the Chon Line, instructed the Chon Office to notify the Chon Office of the cancellation decision of the Chon General and to give public notice thereof, and reported it on the Chon Line.

(e) Holding of the Central and General Council and election of candidates;

(1) On November 3, 2003, a majority of the total number of members (274 or three members on the electoral register were already dead at the time of the opening of the Busan Central Assembly) was present and a majority of the total number of members of the Busan Central Assembly (hereinafter “the Busan Central Assembly”) was held on November 3, 2003, even though Nonparty 1, the secretary general, was notified of the cancellation decision of the Busan Central Assembly from the superintendent general, and did not notify or publicly announce the cancellation decision to the members of the Busan Central Assembly.

(2) The Plaintiff was elected as a prospective chief executive officer, who was appointed as the president pro tempore from the white term, as the president pro tempore, in progress by Nonparty 1, at the above Busan Central Assembly, without voting, as a prospective chief executive officer with the consent of all present members.

(f) Recommendation to the President of the General Affairs Office;

(1) On January 12, 2004, the 14th Bridge adopted a resolution to replace three members, including the chairman, from November 1, 2003, on the ground that three members, from among the existing members of the Cridge, do not perform their duties, and the other three members, from among them, were elected as the members of the CMF.

(2) On January 15, 2004, following the Plaintiff’s restoration of nationality as the Speaker pro tempore of the Central Assembly, Nonparty 1 recommended the Plaintiff to the President of the General Affairs Office as a candidate for senior executive officers, along with a statement of delay in reporting the results of the Central Assembly in the name of the chairman of the Central Assembly of the Busan Central Assembly, which was newly elected on January 15, 2004, and a certified copy of the Plaintiff’s family register (the certified copy of the family register following the Plaintiff’s restoration report

(3) However, on January 19, 2004, following the expiration of the term of office of the senior senior secretary, the president of the General Affairs did not appoint the plaintiff as a senior senior secretary, and appointed the non-party 3 (legal title: representative) as an acting chief secretary for the senior secretary.

(g) Request for a trial to the Plaintiff’s statutory committee

(1) On March 4, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the relevant statutory committee, etc. for the invalidation of the notification disposition that the central chief executive officer does not recognize the Plaintiff as a candidate and the implementation of the procedure that appoints himself as a chief executive officer.

(2) On the other hand, the Central Election Management Board decided that the replacement of the members of the Central Election Management Board was illegal, and the Central Election Management Board, composed of the former members, decided to hold the Central Election Management Board on March 9, 2004 on April 2, 200 of the same year.

(3) On March 11, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Busan District Court for a provisional disposition against the prohibition of holding the meeting of the Central Assembly of the Central Assembly of the Central Assembly of the Republic of Korea on April 2, 2004. On the same day, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court for seeking confirmation of the invalidity and respect of status of the master director-general and the master director-general, on the ground that the third-party master director-general, including the instant claim, owns the unregistered master director-general's secret and the unregistered master's secret director-general's secret.

(4) However, as the statutory committee dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on March 29, 2004, the plaintiff dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, and on March 31, 2004, the plaintiff withdrawn the application for provisional disposition prohibiting the holding of the above Busan Central Assembly.

(5) Afterwards, at the Busan Central District Court held on April 2, 2004 for the election of the widely known candidate, Nonparty 3 applied for provisional disposition of suspension of execution of duties against the defendant to the Seoul Central District Court on April 7, 2004. Upon receipt of the above provisional disposition application, on June 3, 2004, the plaintiff applied for provisional disposition against the non-party 3, who is the newly known senior senior senior senior executive officer, to the Busan District Court for provisional disposition of suspension of execution of duties.

H. Disciplinary action against the plaintiff of the defendant Religious Order

(1) On May 7, 2004, the first instance court ordered the plaintiff to take disciplinary action against the plaintiff on the ground that he did not follow the corrective procedure of the situation agency or the adjudication agency within the order of the infringing ccosor in order to promote the will of illegal individuals, and filed an application for provisional disposition prohibiting the holding of the above company's general meeting, the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the invalidity of the election of the president of the National Assembly and the existence of the status, and the application for provisional disposition suspending the execution of the above widely appointed procedure.

(2) In regard to the above disciplinary action, the Plaintiff filed a request for a retrial with the Defendant Cho Jong-won. On September 1, 2004, the said Review Board rendered a five-year disciplinary action against the Plaintiff by applying Article 46 subparag. 4, Article 47 subparag. 14, Article 49 subparag. 5, and Article 25 and Article 33(1)6 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act and Article 46 subparag. 4, Article 47 subparag. 14, Article 49 subparag. 5, and Article 33 subparag. 6 of the said Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5 through 10, Eul evidence 18-1 through 3, Eul evidence 19, Eul evidence 21-1, Eul evidence 23-2, Eul evidence 24-2, Eul evidence 6, Eul 7, 8, Eul evidence 12-1, 23-1, Eul evidence 13-7, Eul evidence 16-3, Eul evidence 26-1, Eul evidence 49, Eul evidence 72, Eul evidence 74-1, Eul evidence 74-2, Eul evidence 75, Eul evidence 12-2, Eul evidence 12-3, Eul evidence 23-1, Eul evidence 26-1, Eul evidence 72, Eul evidence 74-1, 75, non-party 1's testimony and the purport of the whole oral argument as a whole.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's defense

With respect to the instant lawsuit for which the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the status of well-known candidate’s investment and implementation of the procedure for well-known appointment on the ground that he was elected as a well-known candidate at the plenary session, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case should be dismissed on the grounds as follows.

(1) In light of the freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion guaranteed by the Constitution, the defendant is a religious organization that independently performs a religious mission, and it is reasonable not to participate in judicial affairs regarding internal disputes, barring any special circumstances. Since a series of actions, such as the appointment, appointment, and appointment of the defendant Religious Order, such as the appointment and dismissal of the defendant Religious Order, exercise autonomous rights to maintain internal order, the legitimacy of conclusion or the legitimacy of the procedure should be determined within the defendant Religious Order. Since the decision of the inside court of the defendant Religious Order has already been issued and confirmed by the resolution of the members of the Busan Central Assembly, this is not the subject of judicial review. Thus, the lawsuit of this case

(2) Since the Plaintiff was unable to take charge of the main office due to a five-year disciplinary action against the suspension of official rights, in which the appointment of public office within the Defendant Religious Group is restricted, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it has no interest in the lawsuit.

(3) The defendant only has the right to appoint a publicly known candidate recommended by the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office and there is no right to decide a publicly known candidate, thus seeking confirmation of a publicly known candidate's status against the defendant is unlawful as

(4) Home affairs, even if the Plaintiff is recognized as a public-private partnership, the judiciary cannot order the implementation of the procedure for public-private partnership reflecting the inherent authority of a religious organization and the religious conviction. Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) As to the first defense

Except as otherwise provided in the Constitution, courts shall judge all legal disputes (see Article 2(1) of the Court Organization Act). Thus, in principle, legal disputes shall be subject to judicial review, unless there are circumstances that a dispute between the parties on specific rights and obligations or legal relations can be resolved ultimately by the application of Acts and subordinate statutes and that it is inappropriate to keep them outside the scope of judicial review due to the nature of the case.

Meanwhile, considering that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and strictly separates religion and state functions, the organization and operation of a religious organization shall be guaranteed autonomy as much as possible. As religious organizations have religious characteristics and organizational characteristics as well as their conflict surrounding religious doctrine, the freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and state, if such dispute arises, it shall be subject to judicial review in light of the principle of separation of religion and state. However, the dispute is merely an internal dispute within the religious organization, and its substance is not different from that of a general civil organization, it shall be subject to judicial review. Generally, a temple registered in a religious group, which is not a private temple, shall be an unincorporated association or foundation with independent right and party ability. Such temple’s status and status as the representative of the temple, while holding the right to manage and dispose of the temple’s property as well as the status of the representative of the non-corporate association or organization. Thus, it shall not be deemed that it is nothing more than a time limit for the confirmation of the recognition or dismissal of the recognition or the right to seek nullification of the recognition and status of recognition and legal relations (see Supreme Court Decision 20085Da4.

Although the dispute in this case is an internal dispute over the defendant's order, the dispute is a dispute over the validity of the election of widely known candidates at the plenary session of this case, rather than a religious and academic point of view, and there is no difference between the dispute and the dispute over the resolution in the general civic organization. Thus, it cannot be viewed differently on the ground that the dispute was resolved by the internal court of the defendant's order, or that the dispute was resolved by the members of the plenary session.

Therefore, the above first defense of the defendant is without merit.

(2) As to the above second defense

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff could not take office at the head office of the Plaintiff because of the fact that the Plaintiff was subject to a five-year measure of suspension of public authority from the Defendant during the duration of the instant lawsuit. However, the grounds for disciplinary action against the Plaintiff are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff did not take the procedure of correction within the end group of the Plaintiff who infringed upon the right to the law and the doctrine of law in order to promote illegal individuals’ desire; and (b) filed an application for provisional disposition of prohibition of holding the Busan Central Assembly on April 2, 2004, including the instant lawsuit, and an application for provisional disposition of prohibition of appointment of a widely known candidate to Nonparty 3, who was elected at the above end of the Busan Central Assembly; (c) the Plaintiff asserted that he was legally elected at the end of the Busan Central Assembly and asserted that he was legally elected as a candidate at the end of the Busan Central Assembly, and thus, (d) the Plaintiff could not take a series of litigation procedures to resolve disputes over the validity of the Central Assembly of this case; and (d) the Plaintiff’s right to discipline and interest in the instant lawsuit are limited to the suspension of disciplinary action.

In addition, as seen above, the chief of the temple, as well as religious status and status as the representative of the temple, who is an unincorporated association or foundation, has the right to manage and dispose of the temple property. As such, the plaintiff's seeking confirmation of the status of well-known candidate investment and the implementation of the procedure for appointment of chief and appointment in the lawsuit in this case is a dispute over specific rights or legal relations. Thus, in determining the legitimacy of the claim, if the legitimacy of the disciplinary action against the suspension of public authority is at issue, the propriety of the disciplinary action should be determined within the main issue.

Therefore, the above second defense of the defendant is without merit.

(3) As to the third defense

The temple is an unincorporated association or foundation and has independent right and capacity as a party, separate from the end group. However, according to the constitution of the defendant's end group, since the right to appoint a senior executive officer, who belongs to the defendant's end group, belongs to the defendant's end group, the right to appoint a senior executive officer, which is the principal office of the defendant's end group, shall be deemed lost the right to appoint a senior executive officer. Therefore, even if it is confirmed as a candidate's status against a senior executive officer who does not have the right to appoint a senior executive officer, it is not profitable, and rather, even if the senior executive officer recommends the plaintiff as a candidate, the defendant denies the status as a candidate for the plaintiff and fails to implement the appointment procedure, it shall be deemed that there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the status of a senior executive officer against the defendant who has the right to appoint a senior executive officer.

Therefore, the third defense of the defendant is without merit.

(4) As to the above fourth defense

In addition, it cannot be readily concluded that the appointment or non-election of the above chief executive officer or the non-election of the defendant clan is reflection of the religious conviction of the religious organization. In addition, even if the defendant clan has the right of autonomy in the appointment of the chief executive officer, if the exercise of the right of autonomy is deemed to seriously go against the concept of justice in the procedure or to significantly lacks validity in light of social norms, the defendant's fourth defense above is without merit (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da63104, Feb. 10, 2006).

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Determination on the claim to verify the status of well-known candidate investment

(1) Summary of the parties’ assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff was elected as a candidate for recognition of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of a master of

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the cancellation of the convocation was decided by the presidential election of the plenary session of this case by the presidential election of the plenary session of this case, and that the election of the plaintiff as a candidate for the plenary session of this case was null and void, since it was held as the presiding official of the plenary session against the Act

(2) Relevant provisions

[Supplementary Constitution]

Article 91 (2) The head office of the headquarters shall be recommended by the Central General Assembly of the plenary session of the plenary session, and the head office shall be appointed without delay, unless there exists any ground for disqualification prescribed by the final law.

Article 92 (1) The term of office of the head office shall be four years: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases subject to disciplinary action heavier than dismissal while in office.

(2) When the head office is dismissed for reasons under paragraph (1), the middle general meeting of the relevant school-gu shall recommend a new chief executive officer within one month: Provided, That where it is impossible to recommend a new chief executive officer within the prescribed period, the general meeting of the relevant school-gu may appoint a acting chief executive officer.

【Local Heading Law】

(2) The head office shall be recommended by the plenary session of the head office 30 days prior to the expiration of his/her term of office, and shall be appointed by the President of the General Affairs Office.

[Election Commission Act]

Article 5 (Duties) (4) The National Election Commission shall direct and supervise the school-gu election commission.

(5) A party district election commission shall report its duties to the National Election Commission.

[Court of First Instance]

Article 6 (Convocation of Meetings) (1) An industrial general meeting shall be convened when any of the following causes occurs:

1. When the remaining term of office of the chief executive officer of the teaching Gu reaches two months;

(2) Convocation for the election of candidates for the head office shall be made by the Gu/Si/Gun election commission.

(3) A plenary meeting shall be announced publicly 20 days prior to the date of convening the meeting.

(4) The call-up of a candidate for the head office shall be made 50 to 30 days prior to the expiration of the remaining term of office.

(5) Omitted.

(6) The method of public announcement of call-up shall be made in an advertisement on the land of the final group, and a method of public notice to the competent inspection and the publication of the public notice to the members of the final group.

(5) Election affairs related to elections, such as the registration of convening meetings, shall be in charge of the Gu Election Commission under the supervision of the National Election Commission.

Article 8 (Acting for Head Office) (1) When the Central and Medium General Assembly fails to recommend a candidate for the head office within the fixed period, he/she may appoint a person to act for Head Office on behalf of the President pursuant to Article 92 (2) of the Religious Constitution.

(3) Determination of party members

(A) Acknowledgement of invalidity of the resolution of the National Assembly of Busan, which elected the plaintiff as a widely known candidate

According to the above Act, the authority to convene the Central Central Assembly for the election of candidates for the principal executive branch of the Central Assembly of Busan Central and Central Government is in the rank of the principal executive branch of the Central Assembly. As such, the authority to convene the Central Assembly of Central Government on November 3, 2003 and publicly announce the resolution on the convocation of the Central Assembly of Central Government on the appointment of candidates for the principal executive branch of the Central Assembly, but it is doubtful whether the principal executive branch of the Central Assembly is a candidate's qualification registered independently from the central office of Central Assembly, and thus, the above order to convene the Central Assembly of Central Government cannot be elected again, and the above order to cancel the convocation of the Central Assembly of Central Government to convene the Central Assembly of Central Government is deemed as having been adopted. Therefore, the above decision to elect the plaintiff from the Central Assembly of Central Government to the candidate to be widely known shall be null and void.

(B) Rejection of the Plaintiff’s valid assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts to the effect that the cancellation does not take effect since the cancellation of the call was not notified by a member of the Central Assembly, such as an advertisement, at the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the end of the year, and that the cancellation of the call was valid by the Central Assembly.

2) Determination

A) First of all, we examine the argument that the convening of the plenary session is not authorized to cancel the convening of the plenary session to the plenary session, and that the cancellation of convening is in violation of the plenary session operating rules, which are the self-governing provisions of the plenary

According to the statements in the above evidence Nos. 2 and 5, the Act on the Busan Central and Central Assembly provides that when the remaining term of office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the council of the Republic of Korea (Article 6(1)), the convocation public notice shall be made 20 days prior to the date of the convocation (Article 6(3)), and the convocation shall be made 50 days to 30 days prior to the remaining term of office (Article 7(4)). On the other hand, the Act on the Busan Central and Central Assembly provides that when the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the principal office of the council of the State.

According to the above facts, it is unreasonable to hold an unlimited general meeting even if there is a reason for not being able to elect a candidate at the Central Central Assembly because it is based on the authority to direct and supervise the Central Election Commission Regulations and Article 5(4) of the Act on the Election Commission Regulations and Article 7(5) of the Act on the Central Line of Small and Medium Enterprises, and it is legitimate in the procedure to issue an administrative order of prohibiting the holding of the Central General Assembly. It is reasonable to say that the convening authority of the meeting can withdraw or cancel the convocation of the general meeting, unless there are special circumstances, even if there is a reason for not being able to elect a candidate at the Central Assembly due to the cancellation of the registration of the candidate, etc., and the convening authority of the meeting can not withdraw the convocation of the general meeting after the arrival of the Civil Act on the premise that it takes the principle of arrival, but it is not possible to withdraw the convocation of the general meeting after the convocation of the general meeting's convocation of a new provision on the law order that is an exception to the cancellation of the convocation of the general meeting.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B) We examine the assertion that the cancellation of the convening of the Central Assembly at the Chyeong-gu Office Chairperson fails to meet the requirements and form for the extension of elections under the Election Commission Act.

According to Gap evidence 12, when the Election Commission Act fails to hold a re-election or postponement of election due to a natural disaster or other unavoidable reasons, the chairman of the Central Election Commission may determine the re-election or postponement of election, and the Central Election Commission shall publicly announce the name of election to postpone the re-election and the reason, etc., and immediately notify the relevant teachers and staff of the suspension of election in the case of an election to be held by the Central Class Assembly members and the members of the Central Election Commission, and the Central Election Commission shall resume the election procedure from the beginning when the re-election or postponement of election is decided, but if only the election day is re-scheduled, the election procedure shall continue (Articles 17-2 and 17-3).

However, the election commission law provides that the Central Election Commission shall decide and publicly announce the election-related affairs to the Central Election Commission Chairperson, while the Central Election Commission Act provides that the Central Election Commission Chairperson shall decide and publicly announce the election suspension only in the case of an election for the Central Council members and the Superintendent of the Central Council members, and the Central Election Commission shall notify the Central Election Commission Chairperson of the suspension of election suspension. Since the Central Election Commission stipulates that the Central Election Commission Chairperson shall be in charge of the election procedure after the Election Commission Act regulates the reelection and the extension of election period, if the Central Election Commission finds that the Central Election Commission’s authority to decide the reelection and the extension of election period is included in the election regulated by the Election Commission Act and that the Central Election Commission’s authority to decide the reelection and the extension of election period is above the Central Election Commission, the Central Election Commission Chairperson cannot be notified of the suspension of election due to the reelection or the extension of election period, in the case of a re-election or the extension of election period, and thus, the Central Election Commission Act does not apply to the Central Election Commission Chairperson.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C) Finally, since the cancellation of the call was not notified by a member of the plenary session, such as the advertisement in the place of the closing organ, the cancellation did not take effect, and therefore, the plenary session of this case is valid.

According to the Act on the Preliminary General Meeting, the method of public announcement of convening the plenary session is stipulated to be made in a way that advertising in a final organ and sending an official document to a competent inspector or any other member of the plenary session may be publicly notified (Article 6(6)). However, there is no provision of public announcement on the case of cancellation of the plenary session under the Act on the Preliminary General Meeting. However, there is no dispute between the parties that the plenary session did not make public announcement of cancellation of convening the plenary session in accordance with the method of public announcement of convening the plenary session under the Act on the Preliminary General Meeting when the plenary session cancels the above plenary session. Meanwhile, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 12 and evidence Nos. 12, the Election Commission Act provides that the plenary session’s affairs of the plenary session shall be widely known to the relevant principal secretary of the plenary session (Article 16(2)), all levels of election commissions may request the head office of the plenary session to cooperate in the election affairs of the plenary session, and the head office shall be notified without delay (Article 15).

In light of the above facts and the fact that the procedure for the cancellation of the meeting of the Class 1 plenary session is not stipulated in the Act, and that the above Act provides for the method of convening the meeting to the extent that members of the plenary session are widely informed of the opportunity to participate in the meeting, unlike the case of “call”, it is interpreted that it can be more simple than that of the plenary session, rather than that of the cancellation of the meeting. Even if the above resolution for cancellation of the meeting was not announced by the plenary session, it is difficult to say that the plenary session was not announced by the plenary session’s public announcement to the plenary session’s public announcement to the extent that the plenary session’s non-party 1 and the plenary session’s public announcement was made by the plenary session’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s public announcement.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(C) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion seeking confirmation that the plaintiff is in the position of panmanshipship investment under the premise that the panmanship general meeting of this case is valid is without merit without further review.

B. Determination on a request for performance of the procedure for well-known appointment

The plaintiff asserts that at the plenary session of this case, the plaintiff was elected as a candidate for chief executive officer and recommended as a candidate for chief executive officer. The plaintiff did not have any grounds for disqualification provided for in the Constitutional Court and the Religious Law, and the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure to appoint the plaintiff as chief executive officer. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff did not have the status of chief executive officer's investment. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that the plaintiff is a chief executive officer's investment is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)