1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a church belonging to B religious organizations, and the plaintiff is a person who was a registered teacher of the defendant.

B. On September 13, 2015, the Defendant opened a trial against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant judgment”), and received education for the teaching activities from D groups, which are the two groups, and was engaged in activities to change the trend of infiltration to the Defendant and spreading D, and made a registration expulsion and an withdrawal disposition (hereinafter “disposition for the expulsion and withdrawal of the instant case”) on the ground that the Plaintiff had encouraged to cause incompetence between the church and the members.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Religious activities are guaranteed by the constitutional freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion.

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 duties or legal relations of the general citizen in relation to the internal relations of the religious organization.

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that a religious organization sanctions a person committing misconduct as a member of the religious organization by religious means in order to establish its doctrine and maintain the order of religious organization and religion falls under the territory of the 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 against the member of the religious organization on the premise that a dispute over the specific rights or legal relations of the members arises, the validity of such disciplinary action itself cannot be determined based on the validity of judicial review.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32386, Oct. 27, 2011).