Applicant (Law Firm Lee, Attorneys Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Order of the Mad-Mad-Mad-Ma

1. Persons concerned and 2 others (Law Firm Boo, Attorneys Kang Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Eastern District Court Order 2006 non-conforming56 dated February 8, 2007

1.In the trial of the case the changes in the purport of the request shall be determined as follows:

A. Nonparty 2 is an attorney-at-law as the temporary chief of the case principal branch office.

B. The remuneration for the non-party 2 to the non-party 2 shall be 10,000,000 won per month.

2. The cost of the invoice shall be borne by the principal of the case.

1. The decision of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. Appointment of a person who is deemed appropriate by the court as the temporary president of the case principal (the applicant, after filing an application for appointment of the president of the temporary president of the Central Council, was added to the application for appointment of the president of the temporary president at the time of the trial, and then withdrawn the former).

1. Basic facts

According to the records and the purport of the whole examination, the following facts are substantiated:

(a) Establishing and Doing the instant principal Religious Order;

(1) The principal of the case is a religious organization that was created by Nonparty 3 on April 1969 and that is not a legal entity. The applicant is a sponsor of the pambsphere, an officer of the principal of the case.

The Do Constitution, which is the highest norm of the Order of the principal of the case, was enacted around February 1972 (Article 17 and Article 20). The Do Constitution, which is the final norm of the Order of the principal of the case, (Article 23 and Article 36), shall be established in the name of the head of the religious affairs council appointed by the Do under the direction of the Do (Articles 24 and 27), the head of the religious affairs branch of the case shall not be subject to the restriction on the term of office (Article 25), the duties of the Do council shall be represented by the order of the head of the religious affairs branch of the Central Council and the chairman of the Central Council, and the duties of the Do council may be exercised by the Do council (Articles 22 and 23), the head of the central council, who is the executive organ, and the central council, who is the highest deliberative organ (Article 23 and 36), and the enactment, amendment and abolition of the Central Council shall be prescribed by Article 138(3).

B. Change in the organization of the case principal branch

(1) On May 1969, Non-party 4 was the wife of Non-party 3, who is the Do governor of the instant principal branch, and was appointed by Non-party 3 as the head of the clan of the instant principal branch, and had been registered as the representative of the instant principal principal branch in various public records, including the registration of business and the registration of real estate, while maintaining his position even after the Do governor of the instant principal branch was enacted.

The head of the Necheon-gu, Seoul. However, on February 193, the head of the headquarters of the Necheon-gun, the head of the Necheon-gun, the head of the Necheon-gun, the head of the Necheon-gun, the head of the Necheon-gun, the head of the Necheon-gun, transferred the head of the headquarters to the Necheon-do by Non-Party 3's direction. In this case, the head of the Necheon-do, the head of the Necheon-do, the head of the Necheon-do, the head of the Necheon-do, the head of the Necheon-do, the head of the Necheon-do, the head of the Necheon-do, the head of the N

around August 15, 1995, Non-party 3 changed the term "the head of "the head of "the head of" who is named as the person in charge of the management of each seal to "the head of "the head of "the head of "the head of "the head of", Non-party 5 to the head of "Yacheondo", and Non-party 6 to the head of "the head of "Yacheon-gun", and appointed Non-party 6 to the head of "the head of "the head of "Yacheon-gun", located in the Gacheon-gun-gun, Gangwon-do, the head of "the head of "the head of "the head of "the head of "the head of", and ordered the head of "the head of "the head of "the head of "the head of "the head of "the head of "the head of "the head of"," and ordered the head of "the head

⑷ 소외 3은 위와 같이 3곳의 도장에 원장을 새로 임명하면서 소외 4에 대하여 “나와 몇 살 차이밖에 아니다. 이제부터 자유롭게 둘란다.”, “나이도 먹고 했으니 들던 날던 상관없다.”, “나이가 있으니 자유롭게 놔둬라.”라는 등의 말을 하였다.

(v) Nonparty 3 directed the interested parties 1 to disburse the funds at the request of another seal while managing the funds of the instant principal branch. Since August 15, 1995, in the column for final resolution of various slips, such as the expenditure resolution of the head of the said branch office, the term “head of the religious affairs branch” was lost, and instead, the term “head of the religious affairs branch” was created, and the interested parties have given approval to the “head of the headquarters” column. Since that time, the interested parties 1 did not work at the head of the said branch office, even after being appointed as the head of the said branch office, and did not work at the “the former head of the religious affairs branch” column.

C. Death of Nonparty 3 and internal division of a group

(1) On January 23, 1996, Non-party 3 died of his old age without designating the Doctrine.

Since August 15, 1995, the representative of the case principal Religious Order's business registration maintained as it was Nonparty 4. However, as a result of the death of the previous Do, the failure of the previous Do governor was caused by conflict in the principal Religious Order's end on July 18, 199, and the end of the case principal's end was largely divided into two parts, which consisting of the vice president, the vice president, the vice president, and the vice president, the vice president, and the vice president, the vice president, and the vice president, the vice president, and the vice president, the vice president, the vice president, and the vice president, the vice president, and the vice president, the vice president, the vice president, and the vice president. In the process of the division, some of the vice presidentss, such as the Do governor's lavis and the vice president's lavis were divided into the lavis and the vice president, and the vice president, the vice president, in turn, did not belong to an independent vice president of the case.

During the business registration on June 7, 199, the related person 1 changed the representative in his name and Nonparty 5, 6, etc., but voluntarily restored to the original state under the non-party 4's claim. On August 26, 1999, the related person 1 changed the name of the representative in his name and Non-party 5's business registration again on August 26, 199, but the competent mining-related official did not cancel the above business registration on September 9, 199 after receiving the petition from the non-party 4.

(d) Litigation concerning the representative of the case principal's order;

(1) On January 18, 201, the case principal's final order (the non-party 4 was the chief secretary of the office) filed a lawsuit against the related party 1, the Seoul District Court Branch 2000 Kahap10329, which confirmed that the non-party 4 is the representative of the principal branch of the case, and subsequently, the case was dismissed on the ground that there is no benefit of confirmation.

After that, at the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2001Na11286), the person concerned 1 confirmed that he is the representative of the principal branch of the case on April 3, 2002, "" filed a counterclaim (Seoul High Court 2002Na18499), and the person concerned 7, 2, 8, 9, 3, 10 and 10 were the representative of the principal branch of the case on May 27, 2002, "the above six persons are confirmed to be the representative of the principal branch of the case" was the independent party participation lawsuit (Seoul High Court 2002Na27837) and the person concerned of the principal of the case on May 29, 2002 who was the principal of the principal branch of the case on his behalf and the president of the principal branch of the Seoul High Court 201Da26742, the principal of the case on May 29, 2002."

D. The final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2003Da16870, 203Da16887, 2003Da16894, 2003Da16890 (Intervention), 2003Da1690 (Intervention)) which was pending by the final appeal of the party concerned 1 and non-party 4, etc. The Supreme Court reversed the part of the judgment of the appellate court and remanded to the court of final appeal on January 28, 2005, stating that "the chief of the final appeal of the case is the representative of the principal principal branch of the case which is legally independent from the legal status of the Do governor in the case principal branch of the case, and it is reasonable to see that the chief of the final appeal of the case is the executive office of the principal branch of the case and the representative agency of the principal branch of the case, and it is not deemed that the person concerned 1 was appointed as the chief of the final appeal, and it is not deemed that the non-party 4 was dismissed from the principal of the final appeal."

Secondly, the Seoul High Court dismissed the part of the independent party's claim against the non-party 4 in accordance with the purport of the above Supreme Court's judgment on January 12, 2006 (2005Na19943 (main office), 2005Na19950 (Counterclaim), 2005Na1967 (Intervention), 2005Na1974 (Intervention), and 2005Na1974 (Intervention)) on the ground that all the non-party 4 and the non-party 1 concerned are not the chief executive officer who is the legal representative of the principal branch, and the non-party 1 concerned dismissed the part of the independent party's claim against the non-party 4 in accordance with the above Supreme Court's judgment. The non-party 1 concerned and the preliminary counter-claim (the case's principal branch is confirmed that the non-party 1 is the chief executive officer of the principal branch) and the above lawsuit.

In the Supreme Court Decision 206Da10477, 206Da10484, 2006Da10491, 2006Da10507 (Intervention), and 2006Da10507 (Intervention), the Supreme Court dismissed each appeal on December 21, 2006: Provided, That the Supreme Court decided that it is inappropriate to confuse the representative of the principal of the instant religious group with the representative of the instant religious group, even if the first instance court dismissed Nonparty 3, who was the first instance court, from the time the first instance court dismissed Nonparty 4 from the first instance court to the time the first instance court was dismissed from the first instance court, even if the first instance court did not have the president, until the death of the first instance court, the third party 3 represents the principal branch of the instant case, and from the time the third party 3 died to the death of the first instance court, the chairperson of the instant religious group shall represent the principal of the instant religious group in the order of acting appointment.

2. Judgment on the petitioner's assertion

A. Applicant's assertion

The applicant asserts that, after the death of the non-party 3 before the death of the previous non-party 3, the legal representative and the executive officer of the instant principal branch did not exist, and this may cause damage to the principal principal of the instant principal branch, a legal representative and the executive officer should appoint the president or the chief of the branch office of the instant principal branch, who will perform the duties of the instant principal branch.

B. Determination

(1) On January 23, 1996, Non-party 3 died without designating the latter as the Do governor, and there were several years litigation proceedings between Non-party 4 and the Do governor of the instant principal branch, including interested parties, as to who is the legal representative of the instant principal branch and who is the executive director. Ultimately, the court's ruling that the Do governor who was involved in the said litigation proceedings including Non-party 4 and interested parties, was confirmed to be not the head of the instant principal's office. Accordingly, as of the date of the completion of the party examination, the instant principal branch of the instant case is a legally representative and the head of the Do governor who is the executive officer.

B. According to the Do constitution of the case principal's Order, the chief of the religious affairs division is appointed by the Do governor (Article 24). However, in order to appoint the chief of the religious affairs division of this case, the appointment of the head of the religious affairs division by the appointment of the Do governor was impossible because the non-party 3 died without designating the latter Do governor. Therefore, in order to appoint the chief of the religious affairs division of this case, the central council of the principal branch of this case revised the Do constitution at the central council of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of this case, made regulations on the appointment and appointment of the chief of the Do governor directly from the Do constitution, appointed the chief of the religious affairs director, or enacted the Do constitution which elected the Do governor, and then it seems that the Do governor elected accordingly did not go through the procedure of appointing the chief of the Do governor. In light of the above, it seems that it is difficult to appoint the principal through the amendment of the central council of Do governor.

또한, 사건본인 종단의 도헌에 의하면, 사건본인 종단의 재정은 도인의 자진 성의에 의해 헌납한 성금과 기타 수입금으로 충당하고, 부동산은 대순진리회 유지재단으로 이를 보존하는 것으로 되어 있는데, 기록에 의하면 도헌에 따라 1987. 12.경 재단법인 대순진리회가 설립되어 사건본인 종단이 창설된 이후 개인이나 종단 명의로 관리되어 오던 도장, 회관 등 재산 중 일부를 위 재단법인에 출연하여 이를 관리하는 한편, 종앙종의회의 의결을 거치지 아니하고 각 방면이 독자적으로 조성한 자금으로 매입한 부동산에 관하여는 종단 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마쳐두었지만 각 방면이 자치적으로 관리하여 왔는데, 사건본인 종단에 위와 같이 내분이 발생한 이후에는 소외 4측과 이해관계인 관계인 1측 등은 각기 개설한 별도의 예금계좌로 그들을 지지하는 도인들로부터 성금을 입금받아 이를 각자 조직한 종무원을 통하여 집행하였고, 또한 각 방면의 대표자들은 사건본인 종단 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 마쳐두었지만 각 방면이 자치적으로 관리하는 부동산에 관하여 증여를 원인으로 하여 각 방면 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 옮겼으며, 그 와중에 용암방면의 수임선감 소외 1도 용암방면의 명칭을 ‘용화대미륵선도장’으로 변경한 다음, 2003. 4. 1. 사건본인 종단 명의로 등재되어 있던 청주시 흥덕구 ○○동 (지번 생략) 종교용지 5,166㎡ 및 그 지상의 건물을 ‘용화대미륵선도장’ 앞으로 증여를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 마쳤던 사실{다만, 용암방면의 도인이었던 신청인 등이 위와 같은 소외 1의 소유권이전 등 행위에 대하여 문제를 제기하였고, 이로 인하여 소외 1은 청주지방법원2006고합238호 )로부터 횡령죄 등으로 징역형을 선고받았다가, 항소심( 대전고등법원 2007노37호 )에서 무죄를 선고받았으며, 이에 대한 상고심( 대법원 2007도10443 )에서 상고가 기각되었다}을 인정할 수 있는바, 위와 같이 사건본인 종단의 성금, 부동산 등 재산에 관하여 사건본인 종단과 각 방면 사이에 분쟁이 발생할 개연성이 농후하여 이에 대한 사건본인 종단의 적절한 대처가 요구되고 있는 상황이다.

In addition, according to the records, even though the non-party 4, related person 1, etc. asserted that they are in the legal representative of the case principal Religious Order and are under way of filing a lawsuit, the non-party 11 filed a lawsuit against the case principal Religious Order, claiming that they are the representative of the case principal Religious Order or acting as the representative of the case principal Religious Order (Seoul Eastern District Court 2005Gahap4589), and was sentenced to the judgment against them, and the lawsuit against them was pending, and a number of lawsuits against which the principal principal of this case is a party are being filed, and the fact that the special representative of each case is appointed and is conducting the lawsuit on the ground that the legal representative of the principal Religious Order of this case is a vacancy. Accordingly, the cost bearing of the principal Religious Order of this case is increased, and there is a considerable inconvenience for interested parties.

Article 63 of the Civil Code requires the appointment of a temporary senior secretary to represent the principal of the case in accordance with Article 63 of the Civil Code, and perform his/her duties, since it does not seem to be appointed within the prompt time, even though the vacancy remains due to the legal representative of the principal of the case and the executive officer, and it is deemed that the dispute has occurred or is likely to occur in the organization and property relations of the principal of the case in question due to the prolonged continuation of the vacancy.

3. Conclusion

Thus, until the appointment of the senior secretary general of the case principal's Order is made, Nonparty 2 shall be appointed as the person to perform the duties of the chief of the provisional head of the religious affairs, and the remuneration for Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 2 of the provisional chief of the religious affairs branch of the case principal Order shall be set at KRW 10,00,000 per month and it shall be decided as per the order.

Judges Kim Byung-chul (Presiding Judge) Constitution of the Republic of Korea