1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The premise of facts and the grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the allegations by the parties are as follows: (a) other than using “the end of a consolidated hearing” of the second 16th of the judgment of the court of first instance as “after a thickness hearing, the same seal attached to the judgment of the court of first instance”; and (b) as the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, this part is cited pursuant to the main text of Article 420

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Religious activities are guaranteed by the State’s freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion under the Constitution.

Therefore, the court, as a state agency, should guarantee to the maximum extent the autonomy of the religious organization concerned by failing to conduct substantive hearings and judgments, unless it regulates the rights and obligations or legal relations of the general citizen in relation to the internal relations of the religious organization.

In addition, in light of the fact that punishment by a religious organization against a person of corruption as a member of the religious organization in order to establish its religious doctrine and maintain the order of religious organization and religious, it belongs to the territory of freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution as an internal regulation of the religious organization, even though the court determines the legitimacy of disciplinary action corresponding to the religious sanctions against the members of the religious organization on the premise that the dispute over the specific rights or legal relations of the members belongs to the right of the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, the validity of such disciplinary action itself as the object of judicial review cannot be determined.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32386 Decided October 27, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Na96481 Decided October 11, 2013, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Na96481).

In light of the procedure, form, and content of the instant judgment against the Plaintiff, it is clear that the instant judgment constitutes a disciplinary judgment, which is a regulation within a religious organization, which imposes sanctions on the Plaintiffs by religious means.

However, the plaintiffs' objection.