[2] The case holding that in a case where a lawsuit seeking confirmation on the above confirmation constitutes a legal dispute over the specific rights and obligations relationship and seeking confirmation on the status of accepting the order by asserting the invalidity of disciplinary action, and that there is a right to recommend or be appointed as a chief executive of the inspection of Gap, a private master Gap, as a representative executive, as well as to seek confirmation on the existence of a right to recommend or be appointed as a chief executive of the inspection of Gap, a private master, the case holding that the above confirmation is subject to judicial review

Unless there is an internal regulation within a religious organization that takes disciplinary action or sanction against a person committing misconduct in a religious way, it shall not be always excluded from judicial review. On the other hand, even if it is an internal regulation within a religious organization, such as a resolution of disciplinary action, if there is a dispute over specific rights or legal relations with regard to the validity of such disciplinary action, and if it is necessary to determine the propriety of such disciplinary action prior to the determination of the legitimacy of such action, the court shall determine the legitimacy of such disciplinary action unless the decision does not affect the interpretation of the religious doctrine (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da41026, May 22, 1992; 2008Da17274, Nov. 27, 2008).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff created a traditional temple No. 52 of the No. 52 of the No. 52 of the No. 19999, and was registered with the Defendant Religious Order on June 5, 1997, and held office as a member of the Central Religious Association, which is the horse death under the Defendant Religious Order, since 190, as well as as as a member of the Defendant Religious Association. On March 7, 2005, the general secretary-general of the Defendant Religious Order issued a false application for name registration on the ground that the plaintiff was in a marital relationship and prepared a false application for name registration, and thus, the plaintiff was subject to a disposition of the No. 1 (c) and No. 2 (a) of the No. 1 of the No. 54-3 of the No. 2 of the No. 199999, which is a senior executive officer of the Defendant Religious Order, for the reason that the plaintiff would be aware of his status and the right to be removed.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lawsuit of this case seeking the confirmation of the status of accepting the Defendant Religious Group by asserting that the above removal and destruction of the aforementioned removal disposition not only violate the constitution and the subordinate laws of Defendant Religious Order, but also are invalid, and that the Plaintiff has the right to recommend or appoint as a chief executive officer of the extreme History, and that the Plaintiff has the right to recommend or appoint as a chief executive officer of the extreme History. It is not related to the specific right such as the right or the right to recommend that the Plaintiff has the right to manage the property while holding the status as the representative of the extreme History as a private master of the extreme History, or to seek the confirmation of the status of accepting the right to vote and the right to be selected as a chief executive officer, such as the existence of the right to vote and the Plaintiff’s right to be selected as a master for resolution of disputes over specific rights and duties such as the right to be elected as the existence of such right and the Plaintiff’s right to be selected as the right to vote and the right to be elected, which is not merely a dispute over a mere religious qualification.

However, among the claims in this case, the part seeking confirmation that the plaintiff has the right to recommend the plaintiff as the head of the above theater and the representative officer of the above theater is entitled to recommend the plaintiff as the plaintiff. There is no dispute between the parties as to the right in the record, and there is no interest in such confirmation.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the request for confirmation of the right to know of the extreme death among the lawsuits in this case is justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal. However, the court below's rejection of all of the above claims in the lawsuit in this case by misunderstanding legal principles as to the subject of judicial review, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the subject of judicial review. Furthermore, it is not permissible to allow confirmation of the status of a member of the religious organization which was deprived of the above disposition as a result of the disposition, and therefore it is not allowed to allow confirmation of the status of a member of the religious organization which was deprived of the disposition, and to seek confirmation of the right to be appointed as a member of the plaintiff with the right to know of the extreme death does not constitute a dispute over the specific rights or legal relations of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below, excluding the part on the claim for confirmation of the right to know and recommend the above theater, is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)