[1] Whether a court may determine whether a disciplinary action pursuant to a religious organization’s disciplinary judgment is valid or not (negative in principle)

[2] In a case where a religious organization’s disciplinary judgment violates its internal norms, whether it is unlawful as it violates the national legal order immediately (negative)

[1] A trial with the authority of a religious organization does not regulate the rights and obligations or legal relations of the general public, but belongs to the area of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution as sanctions inside the religious organization disciplinary action and sanction against the members of a religious organization by religious means in order to establish the doctrine of religion and maintain order in the organization and religion. Thus, in principle, the court may not determine whether the disciplinary action is valid or not or not, which is premised on the interpretation of the doctrine of religion and internal rules

[2] Even though a religious organization's disciplinary judgment was judged null and void in accordance with the procedure of objection, appeal, etc. set forth in an internal norm because it violated its internal norm, barring any other special circumstance, it cannot be deemed unlawful as a violation of the national legal order, just because it violated its internal norm, barring any other special circumstance (i.e., violation of the church law applicable only within the church conference, and thus, cannot be deemed as a violation of the national judicial order).

[1] Article 20 (1) of the Constitution, Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 20 (1) of the Constitution, Article 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Meu2065 Decided July 24, 1984 (Gong1984, 1433), Supreme Court Decision 94Da47193 Decided March 24, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1729), Supreme Court Decision 2007Ma224 Decided June 29, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1176)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and seven others (Attorney Park Jong-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 31, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff 7 million won with 5% interest per annum from February 16, 2007 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. The Defendants shall publish a letter of apology, such as the written apology in attached Form 2, in the national daily newspaper and the daily newspaper for purchase on three occasions.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a director and an executive secretary of the Daegu Line (Name 1 omitted) association (hereinafter referred to as the "Foundation"). (Name 1 omitted); the director of the school association; Defendant 1 is a director of the school association; (name 1 omitted); (name 1 omitted); (name 1 omitted); (name 2 omitted); (name 2 omitted); (name 1 omitted); (name 1 omitted); (name 2 omitted); (name 1 omitted); (name 2 omitted); (name 1 omitted); (name 1 omitted); (name 1 omitted; and (3) the vice-president of the local association; (4); (4) the principal of the school association; (1) the principal of the school association; and (5) the principal of the local school association; (6) the principal of the school association; and (7) the principal of the school association; and (6) the principal of the local school association; and (7) the principal of the school association; and (5) the principal of the local school association; and (6) the principal of the local school association; and the local school name 6) the local association;

B. The above Foundation was established by the church (one omitted) for the efficient and smooth performance of missionary work. On April 28, 2006, non-party 1, etc., the directors of the Foundation, who were the directors of the Foundation, caused disputes among executive officers by illegally establishing a juristic person called "(organization omitted)" in the Philippines. The above Foundation purchased land from the Philippines through non-party 2, who was the chairman of the Foundation without the resolution of the board of directors of the Foundation, through the purchase of the land in the name of the Foundation through the name of "(organization omitted)" and requested a temporary board of directors to convene a meeting with the name of "(organization omitted)" on the grounds that the above Foundation's board of directors and directors are dismissed by completing the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of "(organization name omitted)". They held a temporary board of directors meeting on April 30, 2006 and resolved to dismiss the above non-party 1, etc. from the directors of the Foundation who requested the above temporary board of directors. The non-party 1, etc., who held a resolution to dismiss on May 28, 20 and

C. On May 14, 2006, Defendant 8 decided to hold a church to dismiss the plaintiff, the above non-party 1, etc. who is the directors of the foundation (name 1 omitted) and filed a petition with the local council. On May 25, 2006, the above local council in receipt of the above petition did not hold a board of directors meeting and undergo the trial procedure provided for in the Ordinance on the Ordinance on the Disciplinary Powers of the religious Order to which the plaintiff, the above non-party 1 et al. belong, without going through the procedure, and violated the property rights of the foundation and the (name 1 omitted) church, and confused the church by issuing the personnel order of the trade parties. Although the foundation is an subordinate organization established by the church (name 1 omitted), it was decided to dismiss the above non-party 1 et al. as well as to dismiss the above non-party 1, etc. from office.

D. On July 13, 2006, the plaintiff and the above non-party 1 et al. appealed against the above expulsion and withdrawal resolution, and appealed to the general meeting (name omitted) meeting, which belongs to the above religious order. On August 14, 2006, the above general meeting trial committee rendered a judgment that invalidated the above expulsion and withdrawal resolution on the ground that the resolution to dismiss the plaintiff and the above non-party 1 et al. was defective without undergoing the trial procedure as stipulated in Article 21 of the Ordinance on the Disciplinary Powers, and that the resolution to dismiss them as the head is defective without meeting the requirements stipulated in Article 48 of the Constitution of the religious order.

E. (Supplementary order of the religious order omitted) Article 48 of the Constitution provides, “If the road manager claims for the private opinion or is in bad faith, the local council shall resign at the request of a majority of the members of the church.”

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 11, 12, 14, 15, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

According to Article 48 of the Constitution of the religious order, the plaintiff may, at the request of the head of the local council when the head of the local council claims for a change of occupation or commits a bad behavior, resign the head of the local council at the request of more than a majority of the members. According to Article 105 of the Constitution of the religious order, all disciplinary actions shall be deliberated and punished pursuant to the Discipline Act of the Constitution, but the local council shall not be held in accordance with the Disciplinary Ordinance of the Republic of Korea, and even though the local council does not have the qualification to hold a trial, the defendant 8 shall hold a local council and filed a disciplinary action against the plaintiff, and the defendant 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, who is a member of the local council, filed a petition with the local council for a disciplinary action against the plaintiff. Based on the above petition, the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4,5,6, and 7 passed a resolution of authority to remove the plaintiff, and the result shall be attached to the poster or tag, and the defendants shall have the same obligation to state the plaintiff's's claim for restoration.

The fact that Defendant 8 held a position meeting and filed a petition for disciplinary action against the head of the Plaintiff et al., Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, who is the members of the local council, not according to the judicial proceedings under the Act on the Ordinance on the Disciplinary Measures, but the fact that Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 resolved to remove and dispatch the head

However, not regulating the rights and obligations or legal relations of the general public, but belongs to the area of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution as sanctions inside the religious organization which takes disciplinary action or sanction against the members of a religious organization in order to establish the doctrine of religion and maintain the order of organization and religion. Thus, in principle, in light of the legal principles, the court cannot determine whether the disciplinary action, which is premised on the interpretation of the principles and internal rules of the religious organization, is valid or not, in principle, because the judgment on the authority of a religious organization violates the internal rules of the organization and is judged null and void in accordance with the procedures such as an objection, appeal, etc. set forth in the internal rules, the decision on the authority of the religious organization may be deemed null and void, barring any other special circumstances, it cannot be said that the violation of the internal rules violates the national legal order and order (the mere violation of the church law applied only within the church conference cannot be deemed to violate the law and order of the State).

From this point of view, even though the above jurisdiction judgment against the plaintiff was made in violation of the religious order constitution (or the municipal ordinance) set by the religious order to which the plaintiff belongs and the decision to invalidate it in accordance with the internal procedure was made, such circumstance alone does not lead to an unlawful judgment to constitute a tort, and even if the result of the judgment was publicly announced or posted, it does not constitute a tort.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the judgment of jurisdiction against the plaintiff of the defendants is a tort is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Sylonies: omitted

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)