1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court in the first instance are as follows: "The appeal court (Seoul High Court 2015Na2052303) is in progress after both appeals are filed by the parties to this case" in the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Na2052303) that "The appeal court (Seoul High Court 2015Na2052303) is in progress on March 23, 2014, confirming that the resolution of the joint council on the agenda is null and void in the name of the party president, the dismissal of the delegating pastor, the appointment of the delegating pastor, and the appointment of the delegate pastor (L) of the E church. L has no status as the representative of the E church (a delegated pastor, the minister of the party director), and the representative of the E church (a delegated pastor, the entrusted pastor and the chairman of the party chairman)" was declared to the effect that the above judgment is still pending in the Supreme Court.

In addition to "2016da26915...", it is identical to the corresponding part of the Civil Procedure Act, so it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. 1) The Defendant’s assertion regarding the issue within the religious organization is not subject to judicial review, unless it regulates the rights and obligations or legal relations of a general citizen, unlike administrative litigation, as long as it is not subject to judicial review. The instant judgment at the general assembly constitutes a judgment with respect to the Plaintiff, and is not subject to judicial review, since it does not regulate the rights and obligations or legal relations of the Plaintiff’s general citizen, it is not subject to judicial review. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit should be dismissed in an unlawful manner. 2) The instant judgment is guaranteed by the principle of separation of religion and religion under the Constitution.

Therefore, the court, which is a state agency, has failed to conduct substantive hearings and judgments, in principle, as long as it does not regulate the rights and duties or legal relations of a general citizen with respect to the internal relationship of a religious organization.