1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Diplomatic Association affiliated with B religious organizations is located in E at the time of the strike, and the name of the church was changed to “C Educational Association”.

(hereinafter “instant church”). (b)

The Defendant filed an application for seizure of corporeal movables under the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court 2015No. 4587 with a notary public of the instant church No. 610 on October 13, 2015, with the title of execution of a notarial deed, the principal of which is one billion won as a law firm’s title, and the execution officer enforced compulsory execution against each of the goods listed in the attached list at the location of the instant church.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 990,00 to the instant church, and the church failed to pay its principal, and thus became a legitimate owner upon taking over each of the goods listed in the separate sheet from the instant church around September 30, 2013.

Therefore, on the basis of the defendant's title of execution against the church of this case, compulsory execution against the plaintiff's goods should be denied.

B. Each of the goods listed in the attached list of the defendant belongs to the collective ownership of the properties of the church of this case, and thus, the plaintiff is not a legitimate owner, even though the properties of the church of this case can be disposed of according to the church articles.

3. In the case of a church which is an organization of the members of the church, the property which is composed of the members' annual report, the contribution and other property which is composed of the members of the church shall belong to the collective ownership of the members of the church

Therefore, the disposal of the properties should follow the resolution of the general meeting consisting of the members of the church, in case where the articles of association or other rules of the church are not carried out.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da2045, 2046, Dec. 9, 1980). According to the written evidence Nos. 1 and 3, according to the written evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the Plaintiff is the transferor of the “B Religious Organization Ciplomatic Association” on September 30, 2013, and the Plaintiff is the transferor of the instant church.