[1] Whether an act under the organization law that affects an individual's status in a religious organization is subject to judicial review (affirmative with qualification), and where the court can determine the legitimacy of disciplinary action against a religious organization

[2] The case holding that it constitutes a legal dispute concerning specific rights and obligations to obtain confirmation of the status of a creative owner of a temple, etc., to dispute the validity of the resolution of the board of directors of the final group on its status, or to dispute the validity of the resolution of the board of directors on the designation of the inspection of the accident

[1] Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 250 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da41026 delivered on May 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 1967) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da10388 Delivered on June 24, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1254) Supreme Court Decision 2003Da63104 Delivered on February 10, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 404)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Lee Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Incorporated Foundation (Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na113293 decided January 9, 2008

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Unless there is a regulation inside the religious organization that takes disciplinary action against a person of corruption as a member of the teaching organization, it is not always subject to judicial review (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da63104, Feb. 10, 2006; 2003Da63104, Feb. 10, 2006; 2003Da63104, Feb. 10, 2006; 2005Da10388, Jun. 24, 2005). In a case where there is a dispute over specific rights or legal relations in relation to the existence of validity of such disciplinary action and it is necessary to determine the propriety of such disciplinary action prior to the determination of the propriety of such action, the court shall determine the legitimacy of such disciplinary action (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da41026, May 22, 1992; 2005Da10388, Jun. 24, 2005).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is evident that, in order to operate a private temple and become a member of the board of directors of the defendant foundation, the deceased will be entitled to exercise the right to recommend the director of the division who exercises the right to request the appointment of the administrator and the right to request the dismissal of the administrator, etc., and even after the donation, the above creative status may be transferred by succession or delegation. However, if the defendant foundation designates the temple as an accident on the ground that there was a dispute over the right to the right to create a private temple, it shall be suspended from exercising the above authority and it shall be allowed to designate or dismiss an administrator of the relevant temple's property through a resolution of the board of directors of the defendant foundation. In light of the above legal relationship, it shall not be deemed that the above legal status of the defendant foundation's building owner or the right to request the appointment of the inspector, the right to request the appointment of the inspector, and the right to request the designation of the inspector. It shall not be deemed that the above resolution of the defendant foundation's building owner's office's specific legal relation to the above.

Therefore, the court below's decision on the plaintiff's claim of this case is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the court's decision which is subject to judicial review in relation to the area of freedom of religion as asserted in the ground of appeal by the defendant foundation.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the above provisions, Article 7 of the Rules on Division Management of Defendant Foundation provides that "the succession of the authority to create a new temple" and the title "the delegation of the authority to establish a new temple" with respect to the transfer of the status of the original owner of the new temple, and Article 8 of the Rules on Division Management of Defendant Foundation provides that "the permanent increase of the authority to create a new temple shall be guaranteed" in the Articles of Incorporation of Defendant Foundation, and Article 20 (1) of the Rules on Division 7 provides that "the meaning and methods of the increase of the authority to establish a new temple shall be guaranteed to the original owner of the new building, and Article 8 provides that the new owner shall not be notified of the status of the original owner or the new owner of the new building and the new owner shall not be required to transfer his status to the new owner or the new owner of the new building by the new owner's new owner's new owner's new owner's new owner's new owner's new owner's new owner's new owner's new owner's new owner's new owner's new owner's new owner's new owner's new ownership.

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of the above provision on the interpretation of the cost of subdivision as alleged in the ground of appeal

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The court below decided that the non-party's expression of intent that the non-party would succeed to the status of the foundation of Seoul ○○ company, etc. was based on the truth. In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above decision of the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)