The case holding that even though there is a provision that the branch church should register the properties of the branch church under the constitution of the religious order to which the branch church belongs in the future as a specific foundation, the representative of the branch church shall be the act of completing the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the above foundation without the resolution of the general meeting

Articles 228 and 229 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Ham, Attorney Kang Domin-type

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2007No283 Decided April 10, 2008

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal on whether to withdraw from a church

In principle, the members of a church that exists as an association which is not a juristic person shall jointly own the church's properties and use them and gain profit from them, and if some members leave the church and lose their status as members of the church, whether they leave the church is individual or group, or lose their status to participate in the resolution on the management and disposition of the properties jointly owned by the previous church or the right to use and gain profit from the properties of the previous church. The previous church shall maintain the remaining members and maintain their substantive identity, and the properties of the previous church shall jointly belong to the remaining members of the church. In addition, in case where some of the members of the branch church that belongs to the religious order establish a separate church to leave the religious order and join the different religious order after the resolution is passed to leave the religious order, the church shall be deemed to be a newly established church that is not a juristic person by the members who left the previous church, and therefore, the members of the church shall not hold the right to the properties of the previous church any longer (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da374657, Apr. 27, 2006). 2006

The court below determined on January 4, 2004 that the defendant taken office as a member of the church (name 1 omitted), and that on February 29, 2004, after the general assembly of the members (in the case of the above church, referred to as the "joint assembly"; hereinafter referred to as the "general assembly"), the church belonging to the above church is changed into the Korean Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Egrative Eg.).

In full view of the above legal principles and evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the withdrawal from a church as alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the legality of the resolution at the general meeting of April 17, 2005

Where a church that has 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 according to the constitution and the constitution of the religious order and receives the representative of the branch church, the branch church shall be bound by the constitution and the constitution of the religious order to the extent that its independence or the essence of the religious freedom is not infringed by accepting the constitution and the constitution of the religious order and the rules corresponding to the rules of the church (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da37775, Apr. 20, 2006; Supreme Court Decision 2000Da15944, Jun. 30, 2006).

Meanwhile, our Civil Act only has Articles 275 through 277 that stipulate the form and management of property in relation to the legal relations of an unincorporated association. As such, with respect to other legal relations such as the substance and formation of an association, acquisition and loss of membership qualifications, method of representative, operation of a general meeting, reasons for dissolution, etc., in principle, the provisions concerning legal entities in the Civil Act except for those concerning legal entities shall be applied mutatis mutandis (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da23087, Oct. 9, 1992; 2004Da37775, Apr. 20, 2006; 2004Da37775, Apr. 20, 206; 2004Da7775, Jun. 4, 2006; 2006Da16540, Jun. 16, 2005).

The court below held on April 9, 2005 that there is no provision on the procedures for convening a general meeting (title 2 omitted) under the articles of association of a church, and that there is no provision on the procedures for convening a general meeting, except that the Constitution requires the public to be publicly announced at the time of exhibition one week before holding a provisional general meeting. Although the defendant promised on April 9, 2005 to 11:00 times the day to be seen by both the non-indicted and the non-indicted, he did not notify the non-indicted, he unilaterally changed the towing time to 10:00 and unilaterally changed to 10:00 on the next day to the non-indicted, he did not notify the remaining members of the non-indicted, with the intention of maintaining the provisional affairs of "title trust, etc. to the Foundation" after one week after only the non-indicted et al. of April 17, 2005, the court below held that there is no provision on the procedures for convening a general meeting of 200 times the above temporary affairs of the Foundation.

In full view of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, although the above determination by the court below was just in its expression, it did not err in violation of the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the procedure for convening a general meeting, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the grounds of appeal on the defendant's quorum, etc. premised on the legitimate convening of the above general meeting, are without merit, without further examining.

3. As to the ground of appeal on the validity of the instant donation in accordance with the articles of incorporation of March 1, 2004

The court below held that the articles of incorporation of March 1, 2004 cannot be deemed valid in light of the fact that there is no evidence that the articles of incorporation of March 1, 2004 was prepared effectively, and although the defendant asserted that there was a resolution to amend the previous articles of incorporation on February 29, 2004, the minutes of the meeting did not contain any contents of the resolution to amend the articles of incorporation, and the defendant himself did not voluntarily prepare the above articles of incorporation. In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law in violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, the grounds of appeal on the defendant's quorum under the premise that the above articles of incorporation is valid are without merit.

4. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

A. In full view of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s intention is recognized as to the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

B. In order to restrict a branch church, the constitution of the religious order should be accepted by the branch church as an autonomous norm corresponding to the rules of the church, and its contents should not infringe on the independence of the branch church and the essence of the religious freedom. Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal related to the above cannot be accepted merely because the defendant stated that the defendant shall register all of the real estate, such as the land and the building of the branch church, in the name of the Foundation for the Maintenance of the Organization for the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the Organization of the (name 2 omitted) without the resolution of the members' general meeting, since the registration of ownership transfer that belongs to the collective ownership of the members of

5. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)