1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Regarding the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiffs asserted that the resolution that the defendant church left M as a temporary pastor or temporary pastor is null and void, and the defendant asserts that there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the above ice ice ice ice, since the plaintiff is not present in the defendant church because he was absent or removed from the defendant church.
In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to confirmation, and thereby, it is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the anxiety or risk when there is apprehension or risk in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da218511, Dec. 11, 2014). However, Plaintiff C was dispatched from the trial of the General Assembly of the Korea Religious Organization on September 23, 2013, by a judgment of “No later than October 15, 2013, and the expulsion of expulsion becomes final and conclusive when failing to comply therewith,” and the remaining Plaintiffs except Plaintiff C did not appear at the Defendant church for more than six months, and thus, the facts expulsiond can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each evidence set forth in subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, 10, and 14.
Therefore, the plaintiffs are no longer members of the defendant church, and therefore there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the mediation of the non-member of the defendant church, which constitutes the internal dispute of the defendant church. Thus, the plaintiffs asserted to the purport that the judgment of invalidation of the mediation of the above non-member of the defendant church becomes final and conclusive, and therefore there is a benefit of confirmation as the plaintiffs can recover their status as members, but the above assertion is not acceptable.
On the other hand, Supreme Court Decision 4294Da525 Decided January 25, 1962 cited by the plaintiffs is dismissed by a resolution of a non-existent general meeting of shareholders.