(a) Criteria for recognizing the division of a church;

(b) The case holding that although a church is divided into two groups with different worships, it cannot be deemed that two churches have been divided in light of the standards under paragraph (a);

C. Whether the trial expenses concerning the qualifications of pastors and the funerals due to the church's disciplinary judgment are subject to judicial review

A. In light of the general affairs of a church, an association which is not a juristic person shall have the form of an association in which it is in essence a group of members based on the same faith, but in order for a church to be divided into two churches, one church shall be divided into two groups with different religious routes, such as the doctrine and the type of service, and the degree of loss of the foundation as a religious community is reached or even if a dispute is based on other reasons, a resolution is adopted by some members to move into a different religious order to move into a different religious order and the other members shall remain in the previous religious order, while the other members shall remain in the previous religious order.

B. The case affirming the judgment below that it cannot be deemed that the two churches have been divided, in case where the churches are divided into two different groups, but they belong to a certain religious order, and there are still disputes over the management of the properties of a church, not the religious lines, and the succession of the church's administration, not the church's management, and the two churches are divided.

C. As a matter of principle, a church's disciplinary decision is merely an internal disciplinary measure against the trader, such as a pastor, etc., who is subject to disciplinary action in a religious way, in order to establish a religious doctrine and maintain order in organization and religion, and thus, it is not subject to judicial review in principle, and its validity and enforcement are left to the internal autonomy of the church, and therefore, it cannot be said that the time for a church's disciplinary decision on the qualification as a pastor or the head is directly subject to the court's trial.

(b)Articles 275 and 276(c) of the Civil Procedure Act;

A.C. Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Meu1262 Decided September 10, 1985 (Gong1985, 1323). Supreme Court Decision 86Meu197 Decided March 22, 198 (Gong198, 669) Decided February 14, 1989 (Gong1989, 412) Decided 91Da1226 Decided January 19, 193 (Gong1993, 712)

Attorney Park Jae-chul, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na49088 delivered on August 16, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the respondent.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the general affairs of a church, including the establishment of a representative body and a joint decision-making body of its members and the management of properties, the association is in the form of an association which is not a juristic person, but in essence, it is a religious community, which is a group of members based on the same faith. Therefore, in order for a church to be divided into two churches, the members of one church divided into two groups with different religious routes, such as the doctrine and the form of worship, so that they can lose their foundation as a religious community, or even if a dispute arises for any other reason, if some of the members reached a resolution to move into a different religious order to move into a group and move into another religious order, it shall be said that the other members will remain in the previous religious order (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Meu1262, Sept. 10, 1985; 91Da12266, Jan. 19, 193).

However, after compiling the evidence cited in the judgment of the court below and recognizing facts as stated in the judgment, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's church is divided into two groups that regard the plaintiff's church differently from each other, but if the plaintiff's church belongs to one different religious order, the dispute over the management of the church's property, the administration of the church's union members and the succession to the union's administration, which are not religious service routes, cannot be viewed as having been divided into two churches, and it does not violate the purport of the precedents pointed out by the respondent. The grounds for appeal pointing this

2. On the second ground for appeal

As a result, a church's disciplinary judgment is only an internal sanction against trade parties, such as pastors, etc., who are punished by a religious method, in order to establish the doctrine of religion and to maintain the order of organization and religion, and as such, it is not subject to judicial review in principle, and its validity and enforcement are left to the internal autonomy of a church (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1262, Sept. 10, 1985). Therefore, it cannot be said that the time for a pastor due to the disciplinary judgment on its authority and the time for the qualification of the head is the object of the trial of the court directly. The grounds for appeal disputing this issue cannot be accepted.

3. On the third ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is justifiable to consider the evidence presented in the judgment of the court below that the non-party 1, the chairperson of the plaintiff church, is the legitimate representative of the plaintiff church, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence. The grounds for appeal on this point are not acceptable.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)