Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Ham, Attorney Kang Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The term “the term” means the term “the term” means “the term or “the term” means “the term or “the term” means “the term.

March 25, 2009

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2007Gahap23891 Decided July 11, 2008

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the first instance court is revoked. The decision of the first instance court is confirmed to be null and void, with the purport that the defendant removed the plaintiffs from the church on September 30, 2007 (the plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim in the trial).

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence 1, 3, 9, Gap evidence 24 (including each number), Eul evidence 9, 14, 15, Eul evidence 34-1 and 2.

A. The Plaintiffs, as the members of the Defendant, were in the position of Plaintiff 1 and 2, Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 4, and Plaintiff 5, respectively.

B. The provisional constitution of the Korean War Veterans Association to which the defendant belongs provides for the basic life of the members (Article 7), the sound life of one member (Article 26), the sound life (Article 27), the attitude of the members in the church life (Article 28), the observance of norms (Article 30), the duties of the houser(Article 38(2), the duties of the houser(Article 39(2)), the duties of the houser(Article 39(4), the duties of the houser(Article 40(2)), the duties and duties of the houser(Article 41(2) and the duties of the houser(Article 50), the council affairs of the party council (Article 50), and Article 37 provides for the expulsion of the members with respect to the expulsion of the members, and Article 37 provides that "a person who, without the name of the person who has been removed from the school, has an address for one year or more without the certificate, has been removed from the school for 12 years or more without the reason."

C. Progress of disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendant and resolution of expulsion from the plaintiffs

(1) From 1994, Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty in the judgment of the Supreme Court) served as the Defendant’s standing tree.

(2) On Nov. 20, 2005, the Defendant held a personnel conference on Nov. 20, 2005 to select six of the 30 internal collectors who were the first recommending persons as candidates for the president. On Dec. 11, 2005, the Plaintiffs pointed out that there was a problem in the process of recommending candidates at the 5th regular office of general assembly on Dec. 11, 2005, and as a result of voting, the above six candidates failed to obtain more than 2/3 of the re-personnels who were the constitutional requirements and failed to elect

On November 26, 2006, the defendant held a regular meeting on a new recommendation of candidates for the president. On December 10, 2006, at the 56th regular office meeting of December 10, 2006, the non-party 2, 3, 4, and 5 who is the candidates were elected. In addition, the plaintiff 3, 4, and 5, etc. asserted that the above 56th regular office of business had significant defects in the resolution that elected the above persons as the head and invalid, and filed a claim for confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the Seoul Southern District Court 2007Gahap1310, and the above plaintiffs' request was accepted on August 30, 207, but thereafter, in the case of Seoul High Court 2007Na8912, which was the appellate court on January 24, 2008, the judgment of the Supreme Court 208.

(3) Meanwhile, in around 2006, Plaintiff 3 filed a complaint with Nonparty 1 on the ground that it is a transfer group, but the general assembly of the Korea Emotional Society and the Equalian Non-Party 1 recommended Nonparty 1 to carry out his duties more loyalty and did not prosecute the non-party 1. As such, the conflict between the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, and the members of the Defendant became worse due to disputes surrounding the above election and subsequent litigation.

In the end, at the regular meeting of the political party on September 30, 2007, the defendant adopted a resolution that the plaintiffs shall be removed from the school based on each of the above provisions, including Article 37, which is a provision on the expulsion of the teachers from the provisional constitution.

(4) Accordingly, on November 8, 2007, six Plaintiffs and non-party 6 filed an application for provisional disposition as follows.

(A) The Seoul Southern District Court 2007Kahap3268 decided December 7, 2007 against 23 of the members of the Defendant, including Nonparty 1, filed an application for a provisional injunction against the prohibition of access to the church and the prohibition of access to the church. However, the above court dismissed the decision on December 7, 2007 on the ground that “the instant expulsion disposition was a disciplinary action inside the religious organization, and its validity is not subject to judicial review,” and the Seoul High Court's appeal is continuing to 2007Ra2328.

(B) The Seoul Southern District Court 2007Kahap3269 applied against the defendant for provisional disposition suspending the validity of the plaintiffs' expulsion disposition, but the above court rejected the decision on December 7, 2007, and the appeal court continues to be in Seoul High Court 2007Ra2329.

(C) The Seoul Southern District Court 2007Kahap3270 decided on December 7, 2007 and the above decision was finalized on the 15th of the same month.

D. Meanwhile, on December 17, 2007, Nonparty 7, an administrative partner of the Defendant, filed a complaint with the Plaintiff 1 at the Committee for the Judgment of the General Assembly of the Korea Gender Equality and Family. The reason was that Plaintiff 1 caused interference with and confusion with the Defendant’s office-general meeting; ② distribution of illegal inducements asserted by the Defendant’s office-general; ③ filing a complaint, accusation, or lawsuit against the church and the officer of the church in the prosecutor’s office and the court for four years.

Accordingly, on February 25, 2008, the above General Assembly Adjudication Committee ruled on February 25, 2008 that the defendant's expulsion of the plaintiff 1 against the plaintiff 1 is constitutional on the ground that "the plaintiff 1 was a member of the defendant's political party, who did not perform his official duties and improper behavior, and recently (after September 2006, he did not fulfill the minimum obligation as a member, and it is recognized that he did not go to the defendant and did not go to the defendant." The plaintiff 1's expulsion of the members against the plaintiff 1 was ruled to be constitutional, and the plaintiff 1's right as a member of the Korea Emotioniness and the right to take charge of the official duties and duties within the church was lost.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

On the other hand, the defendant decided that there is a problem of qualification as a member required by the provisional constitution of the religious order to which the defendant belongs, and the plaintiffs were removed from the school by the resolution of the party council pursuant to Article 37 of the above provisional constitution. The defendant is recognized through the above resolution that the defendant established a doctrine as a religious organization and maintained a religious order, while it was intended to promote the stability of organization and harmony by excluding the members of the church who conduct the conduct of piracy against the defendant from the members, and therefore, matters concerning the above resolution and its validity should be left to the self-regulation of the defendant, and thus it shall not be subject to judicial review.

The plaintiffs' above resolution at the defendant party meeting is the purport of expulsion of the plaintiffs, and the expulsion at the church is the most severe among the types of disciplinary actions, and the adjudication committee should be organized at the church or the local council below, and the disciplinary procedure pursuant to the Discipline Act should be followed. However, the above resolution at the defendant party meeting is irrelevant to the grounds for expulsion, and its substantive and procedural defects are not related to the reason for expulsion, and thus, it becomes subject to judicial review. However, as seen above, the resolution at the defendant party meeting is based on the legislative provision of Article 37 of the Provisional Constitution. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that the above resolution at the time of expulsion is a disciplinary procedure corresponding to departure. Thus, the above resolution at the time of expulsion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-il