1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the collective council to be called on November 6, 2016 through the church bulletin to the effect that “the collective council of which the Defendant’s decision on the prohibition of entry into and departure from the church is to be convened on the agenda.”

B. On November 6, 2016, the Plaintiff, by holding a joint council, prepared the minutes (No. 2-2 of the evidence A) stating that “40 voters among the 90 registered voters, 37 voters, and 75 voters attended and agreed to the agenda on which the Defendants’ church access was prohibited.”

C. On April 2, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) held a joint council and proposed a ratification of the instant lawsuit as an agenda item; and (b) prepared a council record stating that “40 voters among 90 incumbent voters, and 20 voters, and 53 voters, from among them, have attended and agreed to the instant agenda item.” (Evidence A No. 18-1).

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant C’s determination as to the defense prior to the merits of Defendant C shall claim to the effect that the resolution of the Joint Council held on November 6, 2016 by the Plaintiff and the Joint Council held on April 2, 2017 all of the joint councils held on April 2, 2017 have no effect on the existence of any substantive illegal cause that failed to meet the quorum.

In order to preserve collective ownership, a resolution of a general meeting of members under Article 276 (1) of the Civil Act shall be required, which applies to cases where a church, which is a non-corporate group with the representative’s fixed act of preserving its collective property, conducts procedural acts in the name of the representative. Thus, a lawsuit brought by the representative of a church for preserving the church property without a resolution of a joint meeting corresponding to the members’ general meeting is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da28437, Oct. 25, 1994). The same applies to cases where a joint council was held, but procedural or substantive grounds for illegality exist

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the Joint Council on November 6, 2016 and the Joint Council on April 2, 2017.