The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

The plaintiff's total costs of litigation.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Since the freedom of religious activities is guaranteed by the State’s freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion under the Constitution, the court, a state agency, should ensure the autonomy of the pertinent religious organization to the maximum extent possible by failing to conduct substantive deliberation and determination, in principle, unless it regulates the rights and obligations or legal relations among the general citizens of the Republic of Korea.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da78990, Dec. 11, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32386, Oct. 27, 2011). Therefore, insofar as a dispute pertaining to a specific right and duty or legal relation among a citizen of the Republic of Korea is not related to a dispute, matters concerning the internal relationship of a religious organization is not subject to judicial review by the court as a matter of principle.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, it is revealed that the Plaintiff, who is the regular members of the Defendant church, seeks confirmation of the invalidity of the resolution that elected D, etc. as the head of the office of the Defendant’s general meeting on January 14, 2007.

However, the plaintiff, who is a regular member of the defendant church, is not a direct party to whom the status of the head is granted by the above resolution, and it is not a legal basis for the plaintiff's interest to seek confirmation of invalidity of the above resolution, and there is no dispute over the plaintiff's specific rights or legal relations in relation to the above resolution.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the said resolution is unlawful as it concerns matters not subject to judicial review.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise that the instant lawsuit was lawful, and thus, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the limitation of judicial review on internal decision-making by religious organizations.