1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the legality of the instant lawsuit ex officio on the determination of the legality of the instant lawsuit.

Since religious activities are guaranteed by the constitutional freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and state, as such, the court, a state agency, should guarantee to the maximum extent the autonomy of the religious organization concerned by failing to conduct substantive deliberation and determination, in principle, unless it regulates the rights and duties or legal relations of the general public with respect to matters concerning the internal relations of the religious organization.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32386, Oct. 27, 2011). In particular, in a case where a religious organization establishes a judicial system for the maintenance of order within a religious organization and the autonomous resolution of disputes, disputing the legitimacy or validity of judicial decisions based on such judicial system through civil procedure does not accord with the legal principle that the autonomy of the religious organization should be guaranteed to the maximum extent possible. Therefore, even if such judicial decisions affect the status of individuals in a religious organization, it is desirable to substitute such judicial decisions within a religious organization with the court’s decision through the intervention of the state’s public authority.

On the other hand, even if the actions under the organization law affecting the internal status of a religious organization such as a disciplinary resolution becomes subject to judicial review, it shall not be determined by the court based on the validity of the disciplinary resolution itself as a subject of judicial review, even though it is a premise of judging the validity of the disciplinary resolution, etc. on the premise that there is a dispute over the specific rights or legal relations of the members, and the claims against them

Supreme Court Decision 2006Da77609 Decided April 12, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32386 Decided October 27, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32386 Decided October 27, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2013Da5124 Decided October 11, 2013.