In the absence of a provision on the reversion of the properties of the previous church at the time of the division of a church, etc., whether one church has the right to request the cancellation of the registration of the change of the indication of the registered titleholder or the right to request the cancellation of the indication of the registered titleholder to the other church which has unilaterally registered the change of the indication of the registered titleholder with respect to the properties

In case where one church is divided into two churches, in preparation for the case where the church is divided into two churches, the properties of the previous church shall belong to the collective ownership of the members at the time of the division, and the management and disposition of collective ownership properties as well as the preservation activities of the previous church shall go through a resolution of the general meeting, as long as there is no assertion that there was a resolution of the general meeting of the members at the time of the division of the previous church, as the Gap church composed of some of the members of the previous church cannot request the cancellation of the registration of the change of the indication of the registered titleholder for the church composed of the other members, and since the above indication of the registered titleholder was unilaterally made by Eul, it shall not be deemed that Eul church has the right to request the cancellation of the registration of the change of the indication of the registered titleholder for the above collective ownership property under the joint name with the Gap church.

Articles 275 and 276 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu23561 Decided February 8, 1985 (Gong1985, 416) (Gong1991, 436) Decided December 7, 1990, 91Da1226 Decided January 19, 193 (Gong1993Sang, 712)

Applicants church

Respondent church

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na8442 delivered on March 25, 1994

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the non-party 1 church before the division of the previous church (hereinafter referred to as the "previous church") was affiliated with the Gwangju Labor Association since September 1985, the non-party 2 et al., who left the previous church under the name of the respondent of the previous church or the non-party 2 et al., who was the head of the previous church after the retirement age of May 23, 191, recommended the non-party 3's pastor and the non-party 4 et al. who were the head of the previous church to collectively move the name of the non-party 5's church to move to the non-party 9 times the name of the previous church and the non-party 5's church's right to move to the non-party 5's properties, which were the non-party 4's right to move to the non-party 5's properties to the non-party 5's properties and to move to the above church's properties to the non-party 5's properties.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

In light of the records, we agree with the court below's above fact-finding and its fact-finding to the extent that the previous church was divided into the applicant church and the respondent, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the division of a church or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence. Thus, there is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

However, in case where one church is divided into two churches as above, in preparation for the case where the church is divided into two churches, the previous church's property belongs to the joint ownership of the members at the time of the division, and the management and disposal of the collective ownership property as well as the preservation activities thereof shall follow a resolution of the general meeting (refer to the Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da1226 delivered on January 19, 193; Supreme Court Decision 84Meu730 delivered on February 8, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 90Meu23561 delivered on December 7, 1990; etc.). Unless it is proved that some of the applicants of the previous church were entitled to resolution of the general meeting of the members at the time of the division of the previous church, the above applicants cannot request the above respondent to cancel the registration of change of the church's property as well as the registered titleholder's right to request the registration of change of the church's property under the name of the above respondent.

Ultimately, in this case where there is no evidence to deem that there was a resolution of the general meeting of the members at the time of the division, the court below held that the applicant church has the right to request the respondent to make the indication of the registered titleholder in the name of the applicant church on the ground that the respondent church unilaterally obtained the registration of the change of the indication of the registered titleholder, and that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to be preserved as a requirement of provisional disposition, and that the approval of the provisional disposition of this case was affected by the judgment. Therefore, the argument on this point is with merit.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)