1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The appointment of the President of the General Affairs Office of the defendant on April 13, 2009 shall be made by the defendant.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Of the instant claims filed by the lower court prior to the remanding of the Plaintiffs, the part on the claim for confirmation of invalidity of appointment by the president of the General Affairs Office against the Defendant, excluding the part on the claim for confirmation of invalidity of appointment by the president of the General Affairs Office, was already determined by the judgment of remand and excluded

The Defendant’s assertion and decision-making of the Plaintiffs held the first session on April 13, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant subdivision”) and did not notify the members of the purpose or agenda of the meeting in advance and omitted the candidate procedure for the election of the president of the General Affairs Office, and the election of the president of the General Affairs Office recommended E as a sole candidate is null and void in violation of the law of the subdivision.

Facts of recognition

According to the above evidence, the following facts can be acknowledged.

The defendant is a Buddhist organization composed of paper roads in accordance with the constitution and has a branch organ. The branch organ is composed of the members elected by the election committee of each school as many as the number allocated according to the number of paper by each school district. The functions of the defendant's important decision such as the amendment of the constitution, the enactment of the law, deliberation on the budget and approval on the settlement of accounts, the election of the chief executive officer and the chief executive officer. The chief executive officer is the chief executive officer, who is the chief executive officer, the chief executive officer who exercises overall control over the general affairs of the defendant, and is appointed by the chief executive officer.

Since June 9, 1989, the dispute has been pending in the inside of the defendant, E was appointed as a temporary order from the Seoul High Court on August 25, 2008 (the above court 2007Ra1580), but it was limited to the exercise of power to obtain prior permission from the Seoul High Court with regard to the election of the members of the meeting, the organization of the meeting and the convocation of the meeting for the election of the members of the meeting, in addition to ordinary business as a final order.