1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant made a resolution by changing the name of the instant lawsuit from a general meeting of the teachers on March 29, 2017 to a C guard.

Basic Facts

Since the establishment of a church established in around 1985, E has served as a defendant's standing pastor.

E was used as cerebrovascular on December 27, 2016, and was hospitalized, and later, due to the practical and right paralysis, the defendant was unable to perform his duty of care as a master.

On March 5, 2017, the Defendant’s minutes indicated as follows: (a) a resolution was made on March 5, 2017, stating that “A resolution to see D as a Defendant’s gathering pastor and to cast a pro-con vote; and (b) a resolution was made on March 29, 2017, stating that “the name of the Defendant shall be changed to a C Educational Dogwon.” (hereinafter “resolution on change of the name of this case”).

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the arguments by the parties to the judgment as to the defense of the main purport of the safety at issue are asserted that the decision to replace the representative of the defendant, the change of the name of this case does not exist or is not effective. The defendant asserts that the dispute over the above resolution constitutes an internal relation with religious organizations, and it is not related to specific rights and obligations or legal relations of the general public,

Related legal and religious activities are guaranteed by the freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion under the Constitution.

Therefore, the court, which is a state agency, should ensure the autonomy of the religious organization to the maximum extent possible by failing to conduct the substantive deliberation and judgment, unless it regulates the rights and duties or legal relations of the general citizen with respect to the internal relations of the religious organization.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32386, Oct. 27, 2011). The conclusion of the judgment is based on the following: (a) Doctrine, as well as the religious status of presiding in religious activities; and (b) Doctrine, as well as the status of the defendant, a non-corporate body.