1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. On April 2, 2012, the Korean Film Association of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant C Labor Union”) sentenced the case of Article 2012-31-01 of the C Trial Office (hereinafter “instant judgment”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall be dismissed from the office of director and shall order the withdrawal from the office at the F Educational Association” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).
Although the Plaintiff appealed, on September 10, 2012, the general assembly of the Korea Telecommunication Association of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s general assembly”) rendered a judgment dismissing the above appeal under the Act No. 96-51 on the Extraordinary Trial Office.
【Legal basis for recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1-2, 5, and 6-2; the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant judgment against the Plaintiff of the Defendant CEU and the Defendant’s Assembly against the Plaintiff was rendered in the country of trial of the Defendant CEU, instead of the first instance court, in violation of the jurisdiction of the instance. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserted that there was a significant defect in the double punishment for the same reason against the principle of res judicata, despite having already been rendered a judgment on February 6, 2012 due to the unfair acquisition of roads and the unfair use of construction donation, and that there was a significant defect that had already been subject to double punishment for the same reason against the principle of res judicata.
In this regard, the judgment of this case against the plaintiff by the above defendants is not subject to judicial review, and thus, it is argued that there is no legal interest to confirm the invalidity of the above judgment, since it is not subject to judicial review by the church's authority.
B. Determination religious activities are guaranteed by the constitutional freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion.
Therefore, the court, which is a state agency, has not judged the substantive hearing in principle, unless it regulates the rights and duties or legal relations of a citizen of the general public.