(a) the validity of church judgments and whether they are subject to judicial review (negative);

(b)the validity of a resolution of joining the church with some of the church believerss as well as as one another;

A. The resolution on the authority of a religious organization is merely a regulation inside the religious organization which imposes a disciplinary action on a person who is a member of the society in a religious manner, and it is not subject to judicial review, and its validity and enforcement should be entrusted to the autonomy inside the church. Thus, if the Korea Ethical Director, the Korea Ethical Director, the General Assembly Justice, the member of the General Assembly of the Republic of Korea (joint union), is dissatisfied with the resolution, such as the suspension from the position of a member of the church, declared his/her renunciation from that general meeting, and established an independent operating system by declaring his/her renunciation from that general meeting, thereby establishing an independent operating system, and if the resolution on the loss from the position of a member of the religious organization and the resolution on the

B. If 50 of the church believerss, about 150 of the 500 teachers, and the faculty members left the Joint Assembly of the Korean Egynasium and the Seoul Labor Association, and join the Joint Repair of the Korean Egynasium, the resolution shall have the effect as a withdrawal or a member of the other members who agreed to the resolution, but it shall not be deemed that the resolution shall have its effect on the members who did not participate in the resolution, and therefore, this resolution shall not be deemed to be the total amount of the church, and therefore, the above church still belongs to the Joint Egynasium and the Seoul Labor Association under its control, regardless of the resolution.

A. Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da1118 Delivered on December 26, 1978

Plaintiff Curriculum et al.

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

Defendant 1 and 10 Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na1251 delivered on December 15, 1980

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 5 are examined together.

1. According to the judgment of the court below, since the defendant church's 197.2.9 of the above 7th regular church's 197 church's 7th regular church's 7th regular church's 9th regular church's 7th regular church's 9th regular church's 9th regular church's 9th regular church's 197 regular church's 9th regular church's 197 regular church's 19th regular church's 9th regular church's 9th regular church's 19th regular church's 19th regular church's 9th regular church's 19th regular church's 9th regular church's 9th regular church's 9th regular church's 9th regular church's 197 regular church's 19th regular church's 9th regular church's 9th regular church's 9th regular council's 196th regular council's 10th regular council's 1.

(1) A decision made by a trial state at the general meeting shall be null and void in violation of the provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution of the Assembly.

(2) From the purport that the Defendants demanded correction of the decision of the general assembly trial state in violation of the Constitution, the plaintiff church and the head of the church and the branch of the church and the branch of the Seoul Labor Association, the Defendants or the believers expressed their intent to withdraw from the plaintiff church or the branch of the church, and it is difficult to view that the Defendants or the believers expressed their intent to withdraw from the plaintiff church or the branch of the church or the branch of the church or the branch of the Seoul Labor Association. Thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have withdrawn from the plaintiff church by this resolution.

(3) As to the decision to cancel the delegation of the company against Defendant 1 on April 18, 197 and the decision to cancel the expulsion against the above defendant 1 on September 8 of the same year of the Seoul Labor Association, the above delegation pastor's decision first was made in the front that the defendants reported that they had withdrawn from the general meeting and the Seoul Labor Union Association, or that the defendant did not withdraw from the general meeting or the Seoul Labor Union Association at the general meeting at the general meeting at the general meeting at the general meeting at the general meeting at the general meeting at the general meeting at the general meeting at the general meeting at the general meeting at the meeting at the meeting at the same time, the above expulsion's decision cannot take effect. On the other hand, the above expulsion's decision was made in accordance with the judgment against the defendant 1 of the country of the general meeting at the general meeting at the general meeting at the same time, and if the above Seoul Labor Union independently made the above expulsion's decision, it cannot be viewed as valid since there was no evidence that the above expulsion

(4) On February 12, 1979, the Seoul Labor-Management Council's resolution was concluded by the Supreme Court's rejection of the lawsuit filed against the defendant 1 and 2 for the confirmation of the existence of the resolution of the above member state of the general assembly by the defendant, and the decision of the member state of the general assembly is deemed to be effective, and the decision of the member state of the general assembly is deemed to be followed, but the resolution of the member state of the general assembly is still null and void as stated above, so the resolution of the

(5) Finally, Defendant 1, etc., who had withdrawn from a general meeting on February 11, 1977, was admitted to a joint meeting of the Korea Culture and Arts Association, which was divided into the above general meeting on September 1979, shall be deemed to have lost his qualification as a member of the plaintiff church, which is a branch church belonging to the joint assembly, as a member of the joint assembly. However, until Defendant 1 paid the above name of return on October 1, 1979 and withdraws from the plaintiff church, he appears to be the representative of the plaintiff church, and therefore, the resolution to send the plaintiff Hanwon to the plaintiff church on February 12, 1979 shall not be effective in light of the Constitution of the Korea Culture and Arts Association, which provides that the plaintiff 1, etc., who is a member of the joint assembly, shall not be a representative of the plaintiff church, until he withdraws from the plaintiff church.

2. However, if the court below rejected Gap's evidence No. 9-2 and the court below's ruling, the lawsuit demanding confirmation of the absence of the resolution of the general assembly of defendant 1 and 2 against the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 shall be held as defendant, and it is obvious that the resolution of the general assembly's authority is nothing more than regulation within the religious organization imposing disciplinary action in religious ways but it does not regulate the legal relations pertaining to the specific rights and obligations of the members, so it shall not be a matter of legal dispute. Since the decision of the court below's rejection of the lawsuit shall be made because it is not clear that the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 shall be held as the chairman of the general assembly of the above church, or that the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 shall not be held as the chairman of the general assembly of the above church, and the resolution of the court below's rejection of the lawsuit shall be carried out with the authority of the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2's members and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 shall not be held as a new resolution of the general assembly's authority.

3. Therefore, the appeal to which the judgment of the court below is discussed to the same purport is without merit, and the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)