[1] In a case where some members left their religious orders and decided to move to a different religious order, the criteria for determining whether they leave the previous church

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which held that when the defendant, who is the Gap church pastor, added the process of moving the place of worship to Eul, it is not a simple alteration of the place of worship, but a case where the defendant and some members supporting him collectively withdraw the existing church and establish a new church with the existing church Eul with the members of the church

[3] The case affirming the judgment below which held that since the defendant, who is the pastor of Gap church, lost the status of representative by withdrawing from part of his support and Gap church, the act of preparing and using a sales contract with a content of selling the real estate owned by Gap church under the name of Gap church constitutes the crime of forging private documents and the crime of uttering of a falsified investigation document

[1] Articles 31 and 275 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 31, 275, 276, and 277 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 231, 232, and 234 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2009Da67658 decided May 27, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1238)

Defendant

Defendant

LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Song Jin-hun et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 2009No329 decided July 15, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first and second grounds for appeal

A resolution to move to a different religious order that some members leave the religious order and move to another religious order is a concept different from collective withdrawal of the previous church, and whether some members can be evaluated as withdrawing from the previous church shall be determined by comprehensively considering various circumstances in accordance with the general legal principles of interpretation of juristic acts (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da67658, May 27, 2010).

The court below decided on January 26, 2006 in the Daegu District Court Decision 2005Da110230, which is a single exchange of property dispute between the defendant and his supporting members, and the Daegu District Court Decision 2005Da110230, which is a single exchange of the property dispute between the defendant and his opposing members, that "it is transferred in the name of the defendant, but since the church relocation site is the property of the ○○○ church, it is decided to register the ownership transfer in the future at the time of the shortest time permitted by the law," while there is no dispute over church properties, such as church relocation site, while the defendant moves to the church office with some supporting members and transferred the existing ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Association, which is a part of the pre-existing △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ branch's prior to the transfer of the defendant to the above church, it constitutes one of the pre-existing △△△△△ branch members.

The above measures of the court below are acceptable in light of the above legal principles and the evidence of the fact-finding court that the defendant intentionally excluded the remaining members who want to follow the "the methods of managing and disposing of the church's operation and properties" and disposed of the church's properties, and left the existing ○○○○○○○ church with some members for the purpose of managing and disposing other church properties. It is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the selection of the representatives of the withdrawing members of the church and the withdrawing members of the church, and there is no violation of rules of experience and logic, etc. which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Meanwhile, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance, which judged that the legal effect of the defendant's withdrawal from the existing ○○○○ church and whether the defendant's status were approved by 2/3 or more of the members with voting rights, thereby maintaining the judgment below, which determined that the court below erred by applying the resolution requirements to leave or change the religious order to which the church belongs, but as long as the court below acknowledged the withdrawal of the defendant's church, it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On the third ground for appeal

This part of the grounds of appeal is merely the purport of criticizeing the selection of evidence and fact-finding which belong to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and thus does not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)