(a) Legal relations of church properties;

(b) Where the members belonging to the same school group have set up the school group to which they belong and some of them join a different religious order due to the conflict of opinions;

(c) Where a church is divided, the relationship of owning the church properties;

D. Whether the divided church can use and benefit from the properties of the church before the division with the new members

A. The properties of a church shall belong to the collective ownership of the members, and the rights and duties of the properties shall lose their status as members of a church at the same time.

B. In a case where the members of a church belonging to the same church are in conflict with each other and some of them remain in the previous church, while some of them pass a resolution to change the church to which they belong and join a new religious order, the original church shall be deemed to be divided into two churches which belong to the previous religious order and the members who agree to move to a new religious order by the church which belongs to the previous religious order and the members who agree to move to the new religious order.

(c)In case where a church is divided, the church properties shall belong to the collective ownership of the members at the time of the division, if any, to the ownership of the properties;

D. Each divided church as above is an independent church and can use and profit from the properties of the previous church, such as the church party building, to the extent that it does not interfere with the use and profit-making of the other party church, and the most important method of using and profit-making from the church properties is to be an act of worship. In other words, in light of the characteristics of the church, each divided church can receive new members, and in light of the continuous change of the members of the church, each divided church can be allowed to use and make profit-making from the church, which is the property of the collective ownership, under the visit of the pastor who will supervise the activities of worship, and it does not necessarily have the right to use and profit-making from only the members at

Article 275 of the Civil Act

(a)B. (c) Supreme Court Decision 70Da2478 Decided February 9, 1971, 70Da2478 Decided February 8, 1985, 84Meu730 Decided September 10, 1985, 84Meu1262 Decided June 30, 1987, and 86Ma4788;

Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Applicant for Provisional Disposition and 7 others

Gwangju High Court Decision 85Na434 delivered on April 4, 1986

1. Of the judgment of the court below, "the respondent shall not interfere with the execution of his duties as the chairman of the party branch of the old central church which is the members of the party branch of the old central church, which is the members of the party branch of the Jeonnam-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-

2. The petitioner's remaining appeals are dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal against the dismissal of appeal are assessed against the petitioner.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 그 채택한 증거들을 종합하여, 신청인 교회인 전남 구례읍 봉동리 471에 있는 구례중앙교회는 1903.5.경 창립되어 미국 남장로교 선교부 소속으로 있다가 1912.9.경 대한예수교장로회 소속으로 되었고, 대한예수교장로회가 1959.9.경 합동측과 통합측으로 분리된 후에는 합동측 교단인 대한예수교장로회 '합동파' 순천노회 소속의 지교회로 있다가 위 합동측 교단의 1979.9.20자 제64차 총회에서 일부 비주류파 교인들이 위 교단을 이탈하여 합동보수파교단을 만들자 이에 따라 그 산하 순천노회도 같은 해 10.9 제70차 정기노회에서 종래의 전통을 잇는 합동파와 새로운 합동보수파로 분리되었는데, 당시 신청인 교회의 당회장이던 피신청인 1 목사와 430여명의 교인 중 그를 추종하던 교인 131명은 1981.6.23 임시 제직회를 열어 신청인 교회가 대한예수교장로회 합동보수파 순천노회에 이속한다는 결의를 하고 같은 해 7.12 그 결의의 인준을 받기 위한 공동의회의 소집을 공고한 사실, 그러자 대한예수교장로회 합동파 순천노회의 전권위원회에서는 같은 해 7.17 피신청인 1 목사를 신청인 교회의 당회장직에서 해임하고, 그 대신 소외 박찬억 목사를 임시 당회장으로 파송한데 이어 같은 해 7.20에는 위 전권위원회를 재판회로 변경하여 피신청인 1 목사를 목사직에서 면직하는 권징판결을 하였으며, 위 박찬억 목사를 당회장으로 하는 신청인 교회의 당회에서는같은 해 8.12 나머지 피신청인들을 위 교회의 장로, 집사 등 직분에서 면직하고 그 들을 제명.출교하는 권징결의를 한 사실, 한편 피신청인들은 이에 맞서위 권징판결 및 권징결의 등의 무효를 주장하면서 위 박찬억과 소외 김정열,황인수 장로 외 18인의 교회당 출입을 금지함과 동시에 피신청인측에서 예배드리는 위 교회당을 실력으로 점거하여 신청인측 교인들의 교회당 출입을 저지하였고, 이에 위 교회당에서 예배의식을 행할 수 없게 된 신청인측 교인들은 부득이 위 김 정렬의 집에서 예배의식을 행하고 있으며, 1985.11.1 위 박찬억이 임시 당회장직을 사임하자 위 순천노회에서 신청외 박 상길을 신청인 교회의 임시 당회장으로 다시 파송한 사실을 인정한 다음, 신봉하는 교리를 같이 하는 개인들이 새로운 교단을 창설하는 것은 헌법이 보장하는 종교의 자유에 의하여 그 효력을 부정할 수 없으므로 위 대한예수교장로회 합동보수파 산하 순천노회도 하나의 단체로서 유효하게 존재한다고 할 것이고, 위 구례중앙교회는 일부 교인들의 합동보수파 총회에의 이속결의에 따라 합동파(진보측) 소속 구례중앙교회와 합동보수파 소속 구례중앙교회의 2개로 분열되었지만 교회당 건물 등 그 소유재산은 분열당시 위 구례중앙교회 교인들의 총유에 속한다고 할 것이며, 신청인 교회 및 그 교회가 속하는 노회가 피신청인들을 목사 및 장로, 집사 등 직분에서 면직하였다고 하더라도 이와 같은 권징재판은 그 소속을 달리하는 목사나 교회에 대하여서까지 그 효력을 미친다고는 볼 수 없으므로 분열후의 합동보수파 소속 지교회의 목사와 교인이 된 피신청인들은 여전히 위 교회당에서 직무를 집행하고 예배를 행할 수 있다고 할 것이며, 한편 위 인정사실에 의하면 피신청인들이 소외 박찬억이 신청인 교회의 임시 당회장으로 있을 당시 그가 신청인 교회의 여타의 당회장으로서의 직무집행을 방해한 사실은 없고, 다만 이사건 교회당에서 분열후의 신청인 교회의 교인들의 예배를 주관하는 것을 일시 방해하였을 뿐인데, 위 박찬억이나 그 후에 임시 당회장으로 파송된 박상길은 위 구례중앙교회가 분열당시 위 교회의 교인이 아니었음이 분명한 이상 교회의 구성원이 계속적으로 변경되어 가는 교회의 속성에 비추어 볼때 분열당시의 교인으로서 신청인 교회의 교인이 된 사람들과 함께 분열후의 합동보수파 소속 지교회의 교인들의 예배를 방해하지 않는한 도내에서 신청인 교회의 교인이 된 분열당시 교인들의 주관아래 드리는 예배에 참석하는 것은 몰라도 위 박찬억이나 박상길이 위 교회당을 사용하여 예배를 주도할 수는 없다고 할 것이며, 더우기 위 박찬억은 신청인 교회의 임시 당회장직을 사임하고 다른 교회로 옮겨 갔으며, 위 박상길이 임시 당회장으로 파송된 이후에 피신청인들이 그의 예배주관행위를 방해하였다는 증거는 전혀 없고, 또한 피신청인 1은 분열후의 신청인 교회의 당회장으로서 직무를 행하거나 신청인 교회의 예배를 주관한 사실은 없고 다만 분열후의 합동보수파 소속 구례중앙교회의 당회장으로서 직무를 행하면서 예배를 주관하였을 뿐이고, 그는 위 구례중앙교회가 분열된 당시 위 교회의 목사로서 교인이었던 이상 분열당시 위 교회의 교인으로서 분열후의 합동보수파 소속교회의 교인이 된 사람들이 위 교회당에서 드리는 예배를 주관할 수 있는 권리가 있다 할 것이므로, 위 구례중앙교회가 2개의 교회로 분열된 이후에도 마치 신청인 교회만이 존재하는 것처럼 주장하고 신청인 교회소속 교인들만이 위 교회당을 독점적으로 사용할 수 있음을 전제로 한 신청인의 이 사건 신청은 그 피보전권리에 대한 소명이 없다고 하여 이 사건 가처분신청을 기각하였다.

2. As to the first ground for appeal:

The argument is that the church's annual report of the members, the contribution of the church and the properties of the church are collectively owned by the members of the church unless there is a special reason, and the rights and duties of the properties are lost at the same time as the members of the church. However, as the judgment of the members of the church on the case in this case has already been revealed, some of the members of the church who belong to a certain religious order shall continue to exist in the previous church because they have agreed to move to move to the church, while some of the members of the church shall be decided to move to move to a new religious order and join a new religious order, the original church shall be deemed to have been divided into two churches which belong to the previous religious order by the members who agree to move to a new religious order, and the church shall be jointly owned by the members of the church at the time of the division, but it shall be deemed to belong to the members of the church at the general meeting of the members of the church and the members of the previous church at the time of the division, and shall be jointly owned by the members of the church at the time of the church (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da48785 delivered delivered delivered, 197.

Therefore, the respondent's members still maintain their status as a member, and they do not lose their right to church property. Therefore, there is no reason to appeal that the respondent lost their rights and obligations to church property on the premise that the respondent has lost his status as a member by leaving from the Central Council of the Respondents.

3. As to ground of appeal No. 2

In the case of the division of a church, the church property belongs to the collective ownership of the members at the time of the division, and the purport of the above precedents of the members who decided that each divided church belongs to the collective ownership of the members at the time of the division, is that each divided church is an independent church and can use or profit from the properties of the previous church, such as the building of the church, to the extent that it does not interfere with the use or profit-making of the other party church, and the most important method to use or profit-making from the church is the act of worship. Therefore, in light of the characteristics of the church, each divided church can accept new members of the church, as well as the right to use or profit-making from the church to the extent that it does not interfere with the use or profit-making of the church by the applicants who belong to the above church, as well as the right to use or profit-making from the church to the extent that the applicants who belong to the church can not interfere with the above church's own activities within the extent of not hindering the members who belong to the church.

In addition, in this case, the respondent should not interfere with the execution of duties as the chairperson of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch, and the purport of the application is that the respondent should eventually be prevented from interfering with the activities of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the party branch of the other party branch of the party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the party branch of the above party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the other party branch of the above party branch of the party branch of this case.

Despite the above, the court below's dismissal of the applicant's application for exclusion from interference with the above applicants' church on the ground that the above gambling detention or gambling paths were not the members of the above church at the time of the division, and that the respondent did not interfere with his duties as the head of the above church and that the respondent did not interfere with his duties as the head of the above church, and that there is no evidence that the respondent interfered with the above gambling paths, the court below's dismissal of the above applicant's application portion for exclusion from interference with the worship cannot be said to have erred in the legal principles as to the divided church property, nor to have affected the conclusion of the judgment because it did not violate the law of the divided church property, nor did it affect

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below dismissing the respondent's motion seeking the exclusion of interference with the execution of duties as the chairman of party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the party branch of the case to

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)