[1] Whether matters concerning the internal relations of a religious order are subject to judicial review by the court (negative in principle)

[2] The case holding that in a case where Eul church belonging to Gap religious order filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the general assembly judgment and confirmation of the status of Byung's representative, where Eul church's request to approve Byung's replacement as a delegate pastor and Eul church's replacement was passed at the council which is the subordinate council of Gap religious order, but the general assembly which is the highest council members of Gap religious order filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the general assembly judgment and the above general assembly judgment is not subject to judicial review

[1] An open church with the substance of an association which is not a juristic person may independently engage in religious activities, but may enter a specific religious order as a branch church according to the contents of the doctrine, the form of worship, the identity of a religious community as a religious community, the missionary work and the routes and direction of the church administration, etc. In such cases, the specific religious order to which each branch church belongs shall aim at maintaining the unique characteristics of the pertinent religious order, such as the contents of the doctrine, and the religious order, and maintaining the religious order within the religious order. A religious order shall be established, amended, and interpreted, shall settle various disputes within the religious order, such as administrative disputes, and shall establish the qualification requirements for the members of the religious order, and shall supervise and supervise the affiliated branch church. Since the necessity of guaranteeing autonomous rights of religious organizations is equally applied not only to the branch church, but also to the higher religious order of the branch church, the right of religious autonomy of both religious organizations shall be guaranteed. However, in such cases, in light of these circumstances, the right of religious autonomy may conflict between the branch church and the religious order may only be recognized within the specific purpose of the religious order without restriction.

Furthermore, since the branch church can be seen as the expression of the collective will of the members of the branch church to accept the direction and supervision of a specific religious order, if the religious autonomy of the branch church is restricted by the religious order, the branch church must resolve the problem in accordance with the procedures within the religious order, and if there is no relevant internal procedure or no problem is resolved by the procedure, the branch church shall not be restricted. Therefore, insofar as it is not concerning disputes related to the rights and obligations or legal relations of the general citizen of the branch church, matters concerning the internal relations of the religious order in order to guarantee the religious autonomy of the religious order shall not be subject to judicial review by the court in principle.

[2] In a case where Eul church belonging to Gap religious order was requested to allow Eul church to leave Byung as a delegate pastor and decided to approve Eul church's ice ice ice ice ice ice attached to Gap religious order, and the general assembly's decision to confirm the invalidity of the resolution to permit Eul's ice ice ice ice ice ice ice attached to Gap religious order and Eul filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the invalidity of Eul's general assembly's decision and the confirmation of Byung's representative status, the case holding that Eul church's right and duty or legal relation is not a direct party who is not denied the status as a pastor or delegate pastor, and Eul church's interests infringed by the general assembly's decision cannot be the basis for legal interest to seek confirmation of the status as a pastor, and it is difficult to view Eul's religious autonomy as a member of the above general assembly's right and duty, even if it is a religious autonomy related to Gap's right and duty as a member of the above religious order, and it is not related to Eul's religious autonomy.

[1] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 20 of the Constitution / [2] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 20 of the Constitution

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32386 Decided October 27, 2011 (Gong2011Ha, 2422)

The Gangnam-do Private School Association of Gangnam-gu (Law Firm Bohna et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Plaintiff’s Intervenor (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Song Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff’s Intervenor-appellant)

General Assembly of the Korea Culture and Arts Association (Law Firm Barun Law LLC, Attorneys Kim Jung-chi et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na94171 decided September 13, 2013

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. Of the total litigation costs, the part pertaining to the participation of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in the intervention is borne by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the remainder by the Plaintiff

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

1. The nature of the instant dispute

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed. In other words, within the above religious order of the Korea War Veterans Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant religious order”), the Korea War Veterans Association maintains the peace and order of the church, and has a church meeting, the labor union, and the general assembly (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant General Assembly”) takes charge of the duties of managing the division and conflict within the religious order, taking overall charge of the branch church and its affiliated organizations within the defendant religious order as the highest church within the religious order, and dealing with various disputes. The Plaintiff church affiliated with the defendant religious order (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Intervenor”) filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the status of the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s participation in the above religious order as the delegate of the Plaintiff church and the Joint Council’s participation in the Defendant religious Order, and each of the above resolutions were adopted to confirm the invalidity of the status of the Intervenor’s participation in the Plaintiff religious order as the general assembly’s participation in the Plaintiff religious order, which was delegated by each of the above resolutions of the two Plaintiffs General Assembly.

B. As can be seen, by rendering a general meeting that confirms that the resolution to approve the ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ices of the Defendant Assembly is invalid, the validity of the Plaintiff church was denied. Therefore, the benefits that the Plaintiff church intends to be protected by the lawsuit in this case can be known as the religious autonomy right of the Plaintiff church in relation to the appointment of the delegated pastor. Meanwhile, the decision-making of the Defendant general meeting can be seen to be substantially the same as the decision-making of the Defendant religious order as the highest church within the Defendant religious order. Ultimately, the lawsuit in this case is a case where the Plaintiff church, which is a subordinate religious organization within the religious order, is dissatisfied with the decision-making of the religious order that is a higher religious organization and requests a judicial review

2. A panel of judicial review on disputes between religious orders and churches;

A. Since the freedom of religious activities is guaranteed by the principle of the freedom of religion and the separation of religion and religion under the Constitution, 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, unless it regulates the rights and obligations or legal relations among the general public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32386, Oct. 27, 201).

B. Meanwhile, although a church with the substance of an association which is not a juristic person may independently engage in religious activities, it may enter a specific religious order as a branch church in accordance with the contents of the doctrine, the form of worship, the identity of a religious community, the missionary work and the routes and direction of the church administration, etc. In such cases, the specific religious order to which each branch church belongs shall aim at maintaining the unique characteristics of the religious order, such as the contents of the doctrine, and the religious order in its religious order and maintaining the religious order within the religious order. If necessary for its existence, the religious order shall establish, revise, and interpret the Constitution, manage various disputes within the religious order, such as administrative disputes, and establish the requirements for the qualification of trade parties such as a pastor, and the necessity of guaranteeing the autonomy of the branch church above shall be applied not only to the branch church, but also to the religious order which is the higher than the branch church, and therefore, the right of religious autonomy of both religious organizations shall be guaranteed. However, in principle, in cases where the branch church and the religious order are not subject to restrictions on the religious order's existence of the religious order.

3. Summary of the judicial review of the dispute of this case

A. Even if a delegating pastor as the representative of a branch church concurrently holds the status of the representative of a church which is not a non-corporate body and has the power to represent the management and disposal of the church properties, the plaintiff church is not a direct party to whom the status as a pastor or a delegating pastor is denied. Therefore, the fact that the status as a pastor or a delegating pastor is denied and that the rights and obligations or legal relations of the plaintiff's Intervenor are affected by the denial of the status as a pastor or a delegating pastor cannot be the legal basis for the plaintiff church's legal interest seeking confirmation of invalidity of each general assembly judgment as the lawsuit in this case. As seen above, the interest of the plaintiff church asserted as being infringed by the above general assembly judgment is the interest of autonomously visiting the delegating pastor who is responsible for the confirmation of invalidity of each general assembly judgment. However, the above interest is related to the religious autonomy of the plaintiff church, and it is difficult to view that it is related to the rights and obligations or legal relations of the general citizens of the plaintiff church. Therefore, there is no exceptional reason to conduct a judicial review on the internal relations of a religious organization.

B. Therefore, in this case where the religious autonomy conflict between a religious order and a church, even though the right of religious autonomy of a plaintiff church is restricted due to the above general assembly rulings, the above general assembly rulings of the defendant religious order should not be subject to judicial review in order to guarantee the religious autonomy of the defendant religious order. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the above general assembly rulings of the above general assembly and confirmation of the status of the representative of the plaintiff's assistant intervenor is unlawful as a lawsuit against matters that are not subject to judicial review.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the judicial review of each assembly decision is permissible only on the grounds as indicated in its holding, and accepted all Plaintiff’s claims. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the limitation of judicial review of a religious organization’s internal decision making. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal. Since this case is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed. Of the total litigation costs, the part pertaining to the participation of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in the lawsuit is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Plaintiff

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)