[1] Whether the above branch church building and its site belong to the above union union, in light of the fact that the members of the Korea Egyptian Association gather the contribution and provide labor to the branch church when they build the church building and that the union union has the authority to deal with the disputes arising from property issues in the above union union rules (negative)

[2] Whether a resolution passed by a joint council with the consent of all the members present is legitimate in the absence of four of the 15 members (affirmative)

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below finding guilty of embezzlement, etc.

[1] There is no room for application of the provisions of the conflicting church constitution in legal disputes, such as the reversion of real property rights, to which the mandatory regulations of the State, such as the ownership of real property, is to be applied. The members of the branch church belonging to the Union's association, not to assist in the construction of the church 1 for the collective ownership of the real property, but only to assist the church 1 as a branch church belonging to the same Union's association. Therefore, the real estate formed by the donation of money and provision of labor by the members of the church belongs to the collective ownership of one member of the church, unless there is

[2] According to Article 10 of the church 1's articles of association, the joint council may be a member of the joint council, and the management and disposition of the church properties shall be made by a resolution of the majority of the joint council which is the general meeting of the members. Thus, the resolution of the joint council held by all the 15 members who attended the joint council with the attendance of the 11 members present at the joint council after holding a notice of convening a joint council with all the 15 members present at the joint council is lawful and valid.

[3] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found guilty of embezzlement, etc. on the ground that there is no proof of crime, and acquitted.

[1] Articles 28, 229, and 355(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 275 and / [2] Articles 228, 229, and 355(1) of the Civil Act; Article 276 and / [3] Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1]

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 80Da2045 decided Dec. 9, 1980 (Gong1981, 13461)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Kim Sung-man

Suwon District Court Decision 96Ra769 delivered on January 8, 1997

The part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

Each summary of the judgment against the Defendants shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1, his defense counsel, and Defendant 2 were to use the above real estate in the name of Defendant 1 and the above 200 square meters of land located at 170 and buildings attached thereto (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case") for the purpose of the above 1 and 400 square meters of the above 1000 church and the above 10000 church were to be jointly owned by the 197 members of the church and to use the above 2000 church for the above 1 and 19000 church 2. The court below held that the above 190 church's 1 and the above 2000 church's 1 and the above 197 church's 2000 church's 1 and the above 194 church's 2000 church's 97 church's 1 and the above 194 church's 2000 church's 19.

2. The judgment of the court below

The court below found Defendant 1 to have purchased the above properties of the above church 1 in the name of the above 10th of the 10th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 3th of the 1st of the 1st of the 3th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 3th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 3th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2.

3. Judgment of party members

A. Defendants and complainants' assertion

From the police to the trial of the party, the Defendants purchased church sites and constructed a church building on the ground of the provision of the money to the 10 members of the church. As such, the Defendants jointly own the church site. From 10 days prior to the opening of the joint council, the Defendants verbally contact with the 15 members of the church, using the time time and telephone for the head of the time and telephone before the opening of the joint council, and on December 28, 1994, at the time of the 15 members of the church (Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Nonindicted 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 23, 24, 26, 27), among 11 members of the 15 members of the church at the time of the joint council (Defendant 1, Defendant 2, 2, 24, 25, 26, 27) who did not attend the joint council to the 11st members of the church to the 1st of the above joint council.

As the complainant 1, 1, 1, 2, the above 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 4, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 4, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 1, 25, 1, 2, 1, 28, 1, 3.

B. Key issue of the instant case

Therefore, first, whether each real estate of this case is the collective ownership of one member of the church or the above collective ownership of the above collective association, and second, if each real estate of this case is the collective ownership of one member of the church, whether the above collective association resolution of December 28, 1994 is valid as a resolution of all the members or not as a resolution of all the members, and therefore it is illegal and invalid as it is not a resolution of all the members.

(c) Markets:

(1) First, we examine whether each of the instant real estate is owned by the Union or jointly owned by one member of the church.

① According to the above non-indicted 1’s statement at the police station, the police of the above country, the Defendants’ statement at the prosecution, the prosecution, the original trial, and the original trial, a certified copy of the register of each of the real estate of this case (1.5 to 62 pages out of 2 books), minutes (19 through 147 pages), money withdrawal (681 pages of the investigation records), sales contract (682, 683 pages of the investigation records), receipts (27 pages of the above investigation records), church register of the same branch church (27 pages of the above investigation records), and the church register of the same 17th anniversary of the above church building, the above 17th church register of the above 19th church and the above 19th church register of the above 19th church (11th church register of the above 197) were also purchased in the name of the above 19th church and the above 19th church register of the above 19th church building of this case.

The above non-indicted 1 and the flexible nations claim that the members of the branch church belonging to the Union Union collect the money when they build a church, provided labor, and each of the instant real estate in title trust with the church 1, based on the union union rules.

② However, there is no room to apply the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which conflict with those of the Republic of Korea, to disputes over the ownership of real estate, which is real rights of the State (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da2946, Dec. 13, 191). Since there is the unconstitutionality and labor provision of the members of the Union's association, each of the above statements made by the above non-party 1 and the members of the church are collectively owned by the members of the Union's association, it is difficult to view that each of the above real estate of this case is collectively owned by the new branch church that belongs to the union members of the Union's association, and that each of the above statements made by the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 1 were owned by the 10th church members of the above church, and that each of the above real estate belongs to the above 10th church members of the Association's 10th church and the above 16th church members of the above church's 196th church's 16th church.

(2) Next, we examine whether the resolution of the Joint Council on December 28, 1994 is valid or not, or whether it is an unlawful invalidation resolution.

(A) First, the above non-indicted 10, 12, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 were not given a notice of convening a joint council on December 28, 1994, and thus, whether the above joint council resolution becomes void or not.

① We examine whether the above non-indicted 10 et al. were the three times instructors of a church at the time of December 28, 1994.

According to the detailed list of the persons who are in charge of the investigation, Nonindicted 10, 12, 20 each of the above Nonindicted 10, 12, and 20 on January 1, 1989 (the above investigation records 74 pages), the above Nonindicted 11 on January 7, 190 (the above investigation records 78 pages), and the above Nonindicted 16 on January 3, 1982 (the above investigation records 56 pages), the above Nonindicted 13 on January 7, 199 (the above investigation records 79 pages), the above Nonindicted 19, 21 on January 29, 1984 (the above investigation records 79 pages), the above Nonindicted 19, and 21 on January 19, 198 (the above investigation records 61 pages), and the above Nonindicted 14, and 15 on January 15, 197 (the above investigation records 196 pages 16, 298).

However, with respect to the above non-indicted 18, there is no evidence to support that the above non-indicted 18 received the tax sentence, and the above non-indicted 17 entered the church 2 on January 1, 1992 and received the tax sentence from the above non-indicted 1 as the member of the church 2 on January 1, 1995 (the above investigation record 88 pages), and the above non-indicted 17 and 18 are not the members of the church as of December 28, 1994.

Next, according to the above 10, 12, 14, 16, 21, and 2 of the church's 194 and the above 10th day after the 10th day after the above 10th day of the church's 10th day after the 10th day after the 14th day after the 10th day after the 10th day after the 10th day after the 14th day after the 10th day after the 10th day after the 14th day after the 10th day after the 10th day after the 14th day after the 10th day after the 10th day after the 14th day after the 10th day after the 10th day after the 10th day after the 2th day after the 14th day after the 1st day after the 10th day after the 10th day after the 1st day after the 10th day after the 2th day after the 10th day after the 2th day after the 10th day after the 1st day after the 2th day.

In addition, the obligations of the members are to obey the rules of the community, the Constitutional Court and the church (see Article 15 of Part II of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 2 of Part V of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the integration of the Korea Epic Association) (see Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, and Article 2 of Part V of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea Epic Association). (The above non-indicted 10 does not contribute to a church that does not go to her own, and the two books among two books of the investigation records are not possible at the same time due to the characteristics of the religion. In light of the above, the above non-indicted 10, etc. already lose their status as a member of the church as of December 28, 1994 and became the two members of the church.

Therefore, at the time of December 28, 1994, the defendants held a joint council without convening a joint council convening a convocation notice to the above non-indicted 10 et al. who are not the members of the church, and the convening procedure of the joint council cannot be deemed unlawful and invalid.

② Even if the aforementioned Nonindicted 1, a flexible station, and Nonindicted 10 et al. were transferred from 1 to 2 of a church as stated above to the above Nonindicted 10 et al. and the worships were not completely lost the status of the members of the church 1, the resolution of the Joint Council on December 28, 1994 should be deemed valid for the following reasons:

In other words, according to the statement of Non-Indicted 1 witness at the court of first instance, the two members of the church who were not members of the above 10th church belongs to the general assembly (joint). According to the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the two members of the 1st church who were members of the 2nd church were not members of the 1st church, and the 2nd church were not members of the 1st church (joint church) who were not members of the 1st church and were not members of the 1st church for 6th church. According to the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the members of the 2nd church who were members of the 1st church were not members of the 1st church and were not members of the 1st church (joint church) who were not members of the 1st church, and were not members of the 2nd church for 1st church and were not members of the 1st church for 6th church, the 2nd church members of the 1st church were not members of the 1st church and were not members of the 2nd church.

(B) Furthermore, as to whether a resolution of 11 among 15 members of the 15 members of the church, who attended on December 28, 1994, is null and void.

① First of all, according to Article 8 of the articles of association of the church 1, the call of the joint council shall be advertised to the church before a week. As such, with respect to the call of the above joint council, the health room, the police of the above non-party 1, each of the above non-party 1's statements in the trial, the police of the relevant flexible country, and the prosecutor's office with respect to whether the above joint council was convened without making an advertisement in advance prior to a week, are merely unilateral arguments, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, according to each of the statements made at the police and the trial of the non-party 23, at the police and the trial of the political party, at the police of the non-party 4, 6, and 5, the defendant 1 notified the above joint council's opening on December 28, 1994, and after the call was made on December 18, 1994, he can find the fact as follows:

② The following reasons are as follows: (a) the above 1st 2nd 2nd 5th 2nd 6th 6th 6th 1st 6th 6th 1st 6th 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 4th 1st 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 1st 4th 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 96th 2nd 2nd 4th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 1942nd 1st 2nd 2nd 4th 2nd 2nd 2nd 3th 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 2nd 3rd 3st 2nd 3rd 1994th 2nd 2nd 2nd 3

③ On the other hand, the above non-indicted 1 and the head of the church should not be less than one year after entering the church for three times. Since the above non-indicted 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 did not have any fact for not less than one year to the church 1, Defendant 1 applied the above non-indicted 4 on December 18, 1994 for the use of each of the real estate of this case, the above non-indicted 4 et al. cannot be regarded as one member of the church. Accordingly, according to the resolution of the joint assembly of the above non-indicted 4 et al. on December 28, 1994, the above non-indicted 1 and the statement of the above non-indicted 4 et al. from the above non-indicted 1 and the head of the church of the above non-indicted 4 were merely one-party 1 and the defendant 2 cannot be found to have any fact that the above non-indicted 4 et al. were not less than one year.

④ Meanwhile, even though the above non-indicted 23, as the above non-indicted 23 initially entered a temporary church as a pastor, was waiting for an opportunity to become a member of another church, it is not a member of the church 1, but the current or former member of the church cannot become a member of the joint council on December 28, 1994, even though he cannot become a member of the church on December 28, 1994, a member of the 1 joint council of a church around December 28, 1994 excluded the above non-indicted 23, and the resolution of the above joint council is still valid by attendance of 10, which is a majority of the members, and by a resolution of all the participants.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the resolution of the Joint Council on December 28, 1994 is valid, and the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate made in accordance with the above resolution also conforms to the substantive legal relationship. Thus, the defendants' act of completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of defendant 1 with respect to each of the instant real estate does not constitute crime of embezzlement, false entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed, and the crime of uttering of the authentic copy of the authentic deed. Therefore, the facts charged in the instant case should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the facts charged in the instant case fall under the absence of proof of crime. However, the court below erred by admitting the facts charged in this case as guilty and thereby affecting the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled again after pleading.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as seen earlier. As such, as there is no evidence to prove the facts charged in the instant case as there is no evidence to prove the facts charged, the judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the Defendants pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act is to be publicly announced. It is so decided

Judges Park Gi-sung (Presiding Judge)