[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant-Appellee] The Korea Pharmaceutical Association (Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant 1 (Attorney Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 2

December 24, 2009 [Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 1]

Ad Hoc (Defendant 2)

1. The part of the claim for confirmation of ownership in the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 1 shall be dismissed.

2. On January 29, 2009, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 1 performed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of a transfer agreement with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 list against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

3. The remainder of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), Defendant 2, and Defendant 1’s counterclaim claim are all dismissed.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The principal lawsuit: (2) of the Disposition Nos. 2 and 1 of the defendant (the plaintiff Counterclaim; hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant") shall, around the other hand, take the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to unjust enrichment with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1; (3) as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the Suwon District Court's registry office of 26290, 26291 and 26292 as of December 28, 2007; and (4) confirmed that each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list No. 100,000 and the copy of the complaint of this case are owned by the plaintiff; and (4) as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 list No. 1 and No. 2, the defendant 1 shall transfer the real estate to the plaintiff by the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment; and (4) as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 list No. 197. 198.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 820,00,000 won and 700,000,000 won among them, 5% per annum from August 25, 2008 to the service date of the duplicate of the counterclaim of this case; 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; and 120,000,00 won per annum from the day after the delivery of the duplicate of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment; and

1. Basic facts

A. On July 3, 1974, Defendant 1, who was appointed as a member of the Plaintiff church, was dismissed on March 2008, and Nonparty 1, who was appointed as a member of the Plaintiff church, was appointed as a member of the Plaintiff church.

B. Defendant 1 purchased each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant ○○○○○”) between June 15, 1982 and July 30, 1983, as a member of the Plaintiff church, in approximately KRW 34,50,00. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of the attached sheet No. 1, the Suwon District Court Registry No. 1190, August 2, 1982; as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 and paragraph (12), the registration of ownership transfer was completed by the registration office No. 8582, Jun. 15, 1982; as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3373, Jun. 15, 1982; as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, No. 1982, Jun. 15, 1982; as to the registration office No. 1, 1982,1982. 198

C. From January 28, 1983, Defendant 1 newly constructed a building to be used as a flag source on the instant ○○ Ri land, and around May 30, 1983, Defendant 1 completed the building listed in Annex 2 List 1, and around October 200, the building listed in Annex 2 List 3, respectively, and completed the registration of initial ownership as to each of the buildings listed in Annex 2 List 2 (hereinafter “instant flagwon building”). Defendant 1 completed the registration of initial ownership under Defendant 1’s name as of December 28, 2007 as to each of the buildings listed in Annex 2 List 2 List 2 (hereinafter “instant flagwon building”).

D. On February 17, 1998, the Plaintiff purchased each land listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter “instant land”) from Defendant 2 in KRW 1,092,00,000 from Defendant 2, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the above land under Defendant 1’s name.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, 25, 26, 27, 28, Eul evidence Nos. 34-4, 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the part demanding confirmation of ownership among the lawsuit against Defendant 1

The Plaintiff asserted that the instant flagwon building was registered in title with Defendant 1 as the Plaintiff’s ownership, and sought cancellation of registration of ownership preservation on the instant flagwon building, and sought confirmation that the said flagwon building was owned by the Plaintiff.

ex officio, a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where the plaintiff's legal status is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate such apprehension and danger when the plaintiff's legal status is unstable and dangerous, and a lawsuit for confirmation can be brought, despite the fact that a lawsuit for confirmation is not a final solution of dispute, and there is no interest in confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da41153, Jul. 10, 2008). Article 130 Paragraph 1 of the Registration of Real Estate Act which can complete registration of preservation of ownership of unregistered land is sufficient if a final and conclusive judgment proves that the content of the judgment is the applicant's ownership, and there is no restriction on the type of the judgment, and it does not necessarily have any relation to the formation or execution (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da57704, Mar. 11, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 2008Da216201, Jun. 21, 209).

However, as seen above, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the Plaintiff’s ownership, and at the same time, sought implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of registration of cancellation of ownership of the instant instrumental building on the premise that the instant instrumental aids were owned by the Plaintiff. As such, in the course of pleading on the above request for registration of cancellation, the Plaintiff obtained a favorable judgment and obtained a favorable judgment, thereby cancelling the registration of preservation of ownership in Defendant 1’s name and completing the registration of preservation of ownership of the instant instrumental aids building on the ground that the instant instrumental aids were owned by the Plaintiff. Therefore, there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership ownership ownership of the instant instrumental aids building separately from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant 1’s claim for confirmation of ownership is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Determination on Defendant 1’s main defense

Defendant 1 sought registration of ownership transfer and registration of cancellation of registration of ownership preservation on the land of this case and the land of this case, and for the lawsuit of this case of the plaintiff church seeking payment of loan of KRW 100 million, Defendant 1 asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the lawsuit of this case has the nature as an act of preservation of property jointly owned by the general meeting, even though it is not necessary to go through the resolution of the district council in filing the lawsuit of this case, since the lawsuit of this case has the nature as an act of preservation of property jointly owned by the general meeting without going through the resolution of the general meeting, the plaintiff church of this case has filed the lawsuit of this case without going through the resolution of the general meeting.

Therefore, according to the health stand, Eul evidence No. 1 as to whether the lawsuit of this case shall undergo a resolution of the district council, the plaintiff church's rules provide that "the district council shall conduct an investigation into the purchase and sale of the real estate belonging to the church, including the individual church, the purchase and the lease of the real estate belonging to the church, including the housing, and the incorporation of the maintenance foundation (Article 33 (6) of Part IV), but the above facts cannot be deemed to have been resolved by the district council in cases where the plaintiff church jointly owns the lawsuit, and it is difficult to see that the lawsuit of this case is about the purchase and sale of the real estate belonging to the plaintiff church. Thus, this part of the defendant 1's allegation is without merit.

Next, with respect to the filing of the lawsuit in this case, the provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of common property cannot be applied to the preservation of the jointly owned property. Barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the resolution of the general meeting shall be passed pursuant to Article 276(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, even in a case where an association which is not a juristic person files a lawsuit as an act of preserving the jointly owned property, the resolution of the general meeting of the members shall be passed unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17062, Dec. 27, 2007). In full view of the respective entries and arguments in Articles 98 and 99, the whole purport of the arguments and arguments, the plaintiff church is to publicly notify that the general meeting of the plaintiff church was scheduled to be held before September 27, 2009, and even if the defendant asserts that the above part of the plaintiff church had been present at the general meeting of 190 members, it cannot be acknowledged that the above part of the plaintiff church had been present at the general meeting of this case.

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1 on the principal lawsuit

A. Claim on ○○○ land of this case

(1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since around 1980, the plaintiff set up a budget for land purchase, set aside money for the purchase of land, and that the above ○○ land was purchased around 1982 as the reserve fund, and concluded a sales contract under the name of the plaintiff and the defendant 1 under the name of the defendant 1, and completed the registration of ownership transfer. Thus, the defendant 1 has the obligation to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for unjust enrichment on the land of this case and deliver the above ○○ land to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, Defendant 1 stated that the land of this case was purchased with Defendant 1’s funds and was owned by Defendant 1, and that the land of this case was not owned by the Plaintiff, claiming that the land of this case was not owned by the Plaintiff, and that it was not owned by the Plaintiff, and that Defendant 1 purchased the land of this case at the private expense. ② The amount accumulated by the Plaintiff church from 1980 to 1980 to 20 omitted was used to purchase the land of this case, and ③ in the list of the district council reports submitted by the Plaintiff church in 1983, the land of this case was not registered as the property of the Plaintiff church.

(2) Determination:

In light of the fact that the plaintiff 1 purchased the above 30th church's 40th 100,000 won and the above 9th 10th 3th 10,000 won and the 9th 1st 3th 9th 1st 1st 3th 1st 3th 198, the plaintiff 4th 9th 1st 1st 3th 3th 3th 196th 1st 3th 3th 196th 4th 196th 1st 4th 3th 196th 3th 3th 196th 1st 3th 198, the plaintiff 2th 3th 9th 4th 196th 1st 3th 4th 198, the plaintiff 3th 4th 5th 198.

B. Claim on the Dogwon Building of this case

(1) The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff, as an affiliated organization of the Plaintiff church, was newly constructed at the Plaintiff’s expense and owned by Defendant 1. As such, Defendant 1 completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the above Do council building. Defendant 1, asserting that Defendant 1 was obligated to cancel the registration of preservation of ownership on the above Do council building and deliver the above Do council building at the Plaintiff’s expense, and that the instant Do council building was newly constructed at the Plaintiff’s expense. From 1980 to 2004, the Plaintiff church paid KRW 228,72,059 in total for the construction cost of the Do council building and the Do council subsidy for the Do council building. ② The contract for the construction and remuneration of the Do council members was concluded in the name of the Plaintiff church, and all public charges related to the operation of the Do council members of this case were paid from the Plaintiff church, and ③ Defendant 1 did not own the property to bear the construction cost of the instant Do council because there was no other revenue source as well as the employment of the Plaintiff church.

As to this, Defendant 1 asserted that the building of this case was constructed at the expense of Defendant 1 and that it was owned by Defendant 1, and based on that ground, ① Defendant 1 was placed as a member of the Plaintiff church, which was placed in the office of the Plaintiff church, and only introduced the previous members of the Plaintiff church as an affiliated organization of the Plaintiff church in order to impose the tax on the Plaintiff church, and ② Plaintiff church merely delivered the money that Defendant 1 contributed to the instant previous members to Defendant 1, who was the operator of the instant previous Do council, and the money of the Plaintiff church was not disbursed as the construction cost or operation fund of the instant Do council members. ③ Defendant 1 was working as a member of the Plaintiff church, and the contract for the construction of the instant Do council members was concluded in the name of the Plaintiff church, and the receipts were kept in the Plaintiff church, ④ Defendant 1 was not an affiliated organization of the Plaintiff church, but the Plaintiff church did not have the money that Defendant 1 received from the Plaintiff church members in the process of constructing the instant Do council members.

(2) Determination:

그러므로 이 사건 기도원 건물이 원고의 비용으로 건축되어 원고의 소유인지 여부에 관하여 살피건대, 갑 제7, 8, 10, 12, 14 내지 17, 20, 40, 44, 45, 46, 53, 54, 62, 63, 64, 69 내지 93호증, 을 제4호증의 각 기재, 증인 소외 3의 증언에 의하면, 원고 교회가 이 사건 기도원에서 수련회 등의 교회 행사를 진행한 사실, 1986. 1.경부터 2007. 1.경까지 원고 교회의 교인생활수첩에 부설기관으로 이 사건 기도원이 기재되어 있었던 사실, 1987. 3. 15.경부터 1990. 8. 19.경까지 간행된 원교 교회의 주보에 기도원에 건축헌금이라는 항목을 별도로 두고 헌금한 사람들의 이름이 기재되어 있는 사실, 소외 3, 5, 6이 1983. 5.경 ◇◇신용협동조합으로부터 기도원 건축헌금 명목으로 합계 7,600,000원을 대출받은 사실, 원고 교회의 연혁사에 “1982. 7. 16. 산림훼손허가 취득, 기초작업시작(기도원)”, “1982. 8. 9.-14. △△△ 기도원에서 첫 산상집회”, “1982. 10. △△△ 기도원 가건물 완공(성전 40평 1동 기도실 7개, 목양관 1동 사찰숙소 1동) (연인원 1,000여명 동원)”, “1982. 11. 8. △△△ 기도원 기공예배”, “1983. 6. 7. △△교회 설립 예배”라고 기재되어 있는 사실, 원고 교회 명의로 1983. 1. 12. 소외 9에게 이 사건 ○○리 토지에 “◇◇교회 성전 및 교육관”을 건축하는 공사를 도급금액 35,000,000원, 공사기간 1983. 3. 1.부터 1983. 5. 30.까지로 정하여 도급주었고, 이 사건 기도원이 건축된 후에도 원고 교회 명의로 이 사건 기도원에 관한 전기공사, 냉방시설 공사 등을 도급주기도 한 사실, 원고 교회의 지출결의서에는 원교 교회가 1980년부터 2004년까지 기도원 건축비 또는 기도원 건축비(이자), 기도원 보조 명목으로 금원을 지출한 것으로 기재되어 있는 사실, 이 사건 기도원을 건축할 당시 원고 교회의 교인들이 노동력을 제공하기도 한 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 다른 한편, 갑 제49, 59, 69 내지 93호증, 을 제5, 19, 20, 21, 24, 34호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, 원고 교회의 1981년도 구역회 보고서에는 원고 교회가 진행하고 있는 사업 내역을 상세히 기재하고 있으나, 1983년도 구역회 보고서에는 원고 교회가 이 사건 기도원 건축 사업을 진행하고 있다는 취지의 기재가 없는 점, 이 사건 기도원이 건축된 이후 약 25년간 이 사건 기도원의 재정을 원고 교회가 아닌 피고 1과 피고 1의 처가 전적으로 관리하여 왔던 점(이 사건 기도원이 원고 교회의 소유라면 생각하기 어려운 일이다.), 피고 1이 2006년경 이후 이 사건 ○○리 토지 및 기도원 건물이 자신의 소유라는 취지로 주장하자 원고 교회의 교인들이 피고 1의 개인 시설인 이 사건 기도원을 이용하지 않겠다고 하였고, 2007년부터는 더 이상 원고 교회 교인생활수첩이나 연혁사에 이 사건 기도원에 관한 기재를 하지도 아니한 점, 이 사건 기도원이 건축되기 시작한 시점은 1983. 1.경이므로 1980년부터 1982년까지 원고 교회에서 기도원 건축비 명목으로 지출한 금원은 이 사건 기도원을 건물을 건축하는데 사용되었다고 보기 어려운 점, 기도원과 관련하여 원고 교회의 교인들로부터 원고 교회가 수령한 헌금은 원고 교회의 재정으로 적립되지 아니하였고, 대부분 수령된 그 날 바로 이 사건 기도원으로 전달된 점(이는 원고 교회에서 건축비를 지원한 것이 아니라 교인들이 작정헌금을 한 것을 원고 교회에서 받아 피고 1에게로 전달하였다는 피고 1의 주장에 부합한다.), 소외 3, 5, 6 명의로 기도원 건축헌금 명목으로 대출받은 돈은 7,600,000만원에 불과하여 이 사건 기도원의 전체 건축비와 비교하면 그 액수가 미미하고, 원고 교회가 기도원 이자 명목으로 지출한 돈은 매월 일정하게 지출되지도 아니한 점, 원고 교회의 지출결의서 중 “기도원” 건축과 관련하여 1983년 및 1984년 지출된 돈을 합하더라도 그 액수는 3천여만원을 조금 상회하는 정도에 불과하여 이 사건 기도원 건물의 건축비를 모두 충당하기에는 부족한 점, 피고 1은 이 사건 기도원 건물이 건축될 무렵인 1984. 1. 27.경 소유하고 있던 서울 영등포구 (주소 34 생략)에 있는 아파트를 소외 15에게 처분하여 소외 15 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마쳤고, 1988. 5. 3.경에는 수원시 (주소 35 생략)에 있는 아파트를 소외 10에게 처분하여 소외 10 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마친 점, 원고 교회 명의뿐 아니라 피고 1 개인 명의로도 1983. 1. 1. 소외 11에게 이 사건 ○○리 토지에 “◇◇교회 수양관”을 건축하는 공사를 도급주기도 한 점, 피고 1은 이 사건 기도원이 처음 건축되기 시작할 당시부터 원고 교회의 담임 목사로 재직하고 있었기 때문에 원고 교회의 편익을 위하여 이 사건 기도원 시설을 사용하고, 이 사건 기도원과 관련된 자료들을 원고 교회에 보관하였을 것으로 보이는 점, 원고 교회는 이 사건 기도원을 수련회 등의 모임을 위하여 사용하고 피고 1에게 사용료를 지급하기도 한 점, 원고 교회가 피고 1을 횡령으로 고소한 형사사건에서 당시 교회 재정부장을 역임한 소외 12도 이 사건 기도원 건물이 건축될 때 교회에서 건축비를 지원한 것은 없다고 진술하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 비록 이 사건 기도원 건물의 건축과정에서 교인들이 헌금한 돈이 건축자금으로 일부 사용되었다 하더라도 위 인정사실만으로는 원고 교회가 자신의 비용과 노력으로 이 사건 기도원 건물을 건축하여 원고 교회가 이 사건 기도원 건물의 소유권을 원시취득하였다고 보기는 어려우므로 원고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

C. Claim as to the land of △dong in this case

As seen earlier, Defendant 1 agreed on January 29, 2009 to have the instant land registered in the name of Defendant 1 at the present time, and the fact that Defendant 1 agreed on January 29, 2009 to have the Plaintiff complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land in the name of the Plaintiff, is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, Defendant 1 is liable to the Plaintiff to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant land in the name of the Plaintiff on January 29, 2009.

D. Claim for a loan

(1) The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that around 1992, Defendant 1 lent KRW 100 million as company housing construction expenses to Defendant 1, and sought a loan of KRW 100 million and its delay damages.

As to this, Defendant 1 did not borrow KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff church as the construction cost of the company house, and even if the Plaintiff church borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff church, Defendant 1’s debt to Defendant 1’s Plaintiff church cannot be asserted and responded to the Plaintiff’s claim.

(2) Determination:

Therefore, according to each of the evidence Nos. 43 and 97 as to whether the plaintiff lent 100 million won to the defendant, the fact that the plaintiff church paid 100 million won as the construction cost of the defendant 1's company house on December 28, 1997 that "the party report of 1997" was stated that the plaintiff church paid 100 million won as the construction cost of the defendant 1's company house on January 16, 1994. The auditor decided to pay 100 million won out of the construction cost of the plaintiff church on January 16, 1994 that "this fact can be recognized, but it can be recognized that 10 million won was paid as the construction cost of the company house of the defendant 1, and that the plaintiff church did not demand the return of money to the defendant 1 for more than 15 years from the time when the money was paid, the above fact finding alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff church lent 100 million won to the defendant 1, and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion

5. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 2

As to the instant land in Seodong, the Plaintiff filed for the registration of ownership transfer based on the transfer agreement with Defendant 1, and filed for the preliminary registration of ownership transfer based on the title trust, and as to Defendant 1, Defendant 1, who is the seller of the instant land in Chungcheongnamdong, filed for the registration of ownership transfer based on the said transfer agreement, claiming that the registration of ownership transfer based on the title trust is null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), and sought for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer against Defendant 2, who is the seller of the instant land in Seodongdong-dong, and against

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s primary claim against Defendant 1 as to the land of this case was accepted. As such, the conjunctive claim against Defendant 2 is without merit without further determination.

6. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. Request for a loan

(1) The parties' assertion

Defendant 1 asserts that, at the time of purchasing the land of this case in the Plaintiff church, the Plaintiff church was obligated to pay the above KRW 120 million and damages for delay to Defendant 1, since it was loaned KRW 120 million from the agricultural cooperative’s wife to the Plaintiff church under Defendant 1’s name at the time of borrowing the land of this case.

As to this, the Plaintiff church did not borrow KRW 120 million from Defendant 1 at the time of purchasing the instant land, and did not claim that, even if Defendant 1 borrowed KRW 120 million from Defendant 1, the Plaintiff church cannot accept Defendant 1’s claim by asserting that the said loan was fully repaid.

(2) Determination:

Therefore, according to the evidence No. 33 as to whether Defendant 1 lent KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff church, it can be acknowledged that Nonparty 7, the wife of Defendant 1, obtained each loan from Nonghyup on December 8, 1999, and 100 million won on December 30, 199. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above 120 million won was lent to the Plaintiff church. However, according to the evidence No. 35, the Plaintiff church can be recognized that it paid monthly money from Nonparty 7 under the pretext of “private placement interest,” from April 13, 2003 to May 9, 2004, it is difficult to recognize that there was a difference between the loan time of Nonparty 1 and the above 200 million won as the interest payment of the Plaintiff church, while it is difficult to recognize that there was no difference between the loan time of Nonparty 2 and the above 100 million won as the interest payment of the above 1 billion won as the interest payment of the Plaintiff church.

(b) Claim for withdrawal;

(1) The parties' assertion

Defendant 1, on August 24, 2008, passed a resolution of 700 million won at the time of retirement to Defendant 1 on August 24, 2008, and further, on January 11, 2009, the Plaintiff church district personnel committee confirmed the resolution of the above district personnel committee on January 11, 2009, and the Plaintiff church recommended the Plaintiff church to pay 700 million won of retirement to Defendant 1 in accordance with the resolution of the above district personnel committee. Thus, the Plaintiff church is obligated to pay 700 million won of retirement to Defendant 1.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the matters pertaining to the withdrawal of a member of the District Personnel Committee on January 11, 2009 are the duties of a member of the District Personnel Committee rather than the District Personnel Committee, and that the Plaintiff church did not ratified the resolution of the District Personnel Committee to pay a deposit of KRW 700 million to Defendant 1 on January 11, 2009, and thus, Defendant 1 cannot respond to the claim

(2) Determination:

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the rules of the plaintiff church are customary in the district personnel committee on whether the matters related to the retirement of a member of the district personnel committee are duties of the member of the district personnel committee, and the testimony of the non-party 14 of the witness alone to deal with the matters related to the retirement of the member of the plaintiff church. Rather, according to the Eul evidence No. 1, the rules of the plaintiff church shall be decided after consultation on the agenda of the member's transfer, taking-off, housing, living expenses, retirement, early retirement, and safe-age (7 years each), and the rules (Article 3, Paragraph 8 of Part 4) shall be set up in the district personnel committee to deal with the issues related to the personnel affairs of the member of the district personnel committee (Article 35 of Part 4, Section 3, Section 2, Section 35 of Part 4), and since the matters related to the retirement of the member of the local personnel committee are matters related to the retirement of the member of the district council, this part of the defendant 1's assertion is without merit.

Next, according to the records of Eul evidence 7-1 and 25, the witness's testimony on August 24, 2008 that the plaintiff church district council held on January 11, 2009 to pay KRW 700 million to defendant 1, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff church district council held on January 11, 2009 that the amount of retirement money to be paid to the defendant 1 was again discussed, and the non-party 14's statement on August 11, 2008 to be paid to the non-party 1, the committee's opinion on August 24, 2008 to pay KRW 70 million to the defendant 1, the committee's argument that the plaintiff church district should not be recognized as the whole that the non-party 1 had signed the resolution on the non-party 14's statement on January 24, 2009 to the effect that the plaintiff church district's resolution on the non-party 1's resolution on the non-party 2's resolution on the plaintiff church district cannot be reversed.

Finally, according to the mediation of the organization affiliated with the plaintiff church, it is examined whether to pay 700 million won to the defendant 1, and according to the written evidence Nos. 7-2 and 14 of Eul, the mediation committee on the problem of the Suwon-si Do Council, which recommended the plaintiff church on March 13, 2009 to respect the resolution of the personnel management committee of August 24, 2008. The administrative mediation committee of the Gyeonggi-do Council also decided on August 24, 2008 that the plaintiff church should implement the matters resolved at the personnel committee of the above area on August 24, 2008. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the above recommendation of the plaintiff church should be made to the plaintiff church on August 24, 2008, so long as the matters concerning the early withdrawal of the plaintiff church belong to the affairs of the district personnel committee of the above area, it is difficult to view that the above recommendation of the plaintiff church member should be made to the defendant 1.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of ownership among the principal lawsuit against the defendant 1 is unlawful and dismissed. The remaining principal claim against the defendant 1 except the above dismissed part is accepted within the scope of the above recognition. The remaining principal claim against the defendant 1, the remaining principal claim against the defendant 2, and the counterclaim by the defendant 1 are dismissed as all of the grounds for rejection. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

The court below's decision (Presiding Justice)

1) The registration of preservation of ownership of unregistered land under Article 130 (Registration of Preservation of Land) may be applied for by any of the following persons: