Whether a religious organization's internal relations are subject to judicial review by the court (negative in principle)

Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 20 of the Constitution

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32386 Decided October 27, 201 (Gong2011Ha, 2422) Supreme Court Decision 2013Da7890 Decided December 11, 2014 (Gong2015Sang, 108)

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The term “the term of “the term of “the term of “the term of “the term of “the term” means “the term of “the term of “the term”.

Gwangju High Court Decision 2012Na2926 decided January 30, 2013

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. The freedom of religious activities is guaranteed by the State’s freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion under the Constitution. As such, the court, a State agency, should ensure the autonomy of the pertinent religious organization to the maximum extent possible by failing to conduct substantive deliberation and determination, in principle, insofar as matters concerning the internal relations of the religious organization are not regulated by the rights and obligations or legal relations of the general public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da32386, Oct. 27, 2011; 2013Da7890, Dec. 11, 2014). Therefore, insofar as a dispute pertaining to a specific rights and obligations or legal relations among the general public is not relevant, matters concerning the internal relations of the religious organization, in principle, is not subject to judicial review by the court.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, it is revealed that the plaintiff, who is the regular member of the defendant church, seeks confirmation of the invalidity of the resolution elected as the head of the non-party, etc. from the general meeting of the office members of the defendant on January 14, 2007.

However, the plaintiff, who is a regular member of the defendant church, is not a direct party to whom the status of the head is granted by the above resolution, and the fact that the status of the non-party, etc. is affected by being given to the non-party, etc. as the status of the head of the defendant church does not constitute a legal basis for the plaintiff's legal interest seeking confirmation of invalidity of the above resolution, and there is no dispute over the plaintiff's specific rights or

Therefore, the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the said resolution is unlawful as it concerns matters not subject to judicial review.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise that the instant lawsuit was lawful, and thus, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the limitation of judicial review on internal decision-making by religious organizations.

3. Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, and this case is sufficient to be tried directly by the court, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit are borne by the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)