[1] In a case where the members of the church Gap et al. held a temporary joint council and held a resolution to dismiss Eul who is a delegate pastor, and Eul filed a petition for nullification of the resolution to dismiss Gap church, which is null and void in violation of the Constitution and the implementation rules of the religious order to which Gap church belongs, the case holding that in light of the contents of the constitution and the implementation rules of the religious order and the implementation rules of the constitution, the authority to recommend pastors to recommend them to be a secretary shall be the association, and in a case where pastors fail to submit a letter of resignation to the association, he can only be punished for dismissal, etc. as stipulated in the constitution of the religious order through the trial procedure, and therefore the above wood removal resolution without going through the trial procedure shall not be contrary to the provisions of the religious order and shall constitute resignation through new voting

[2] Where an association which is not a juristic person and has the substance is incorporated into a branch church to which a specific religious order belongs and receives as the representative of a branch church to organize a decision-making body and send it to a religious order in accordance with the constitution of the religious order, whether it is an independent association from the religious order (affirmative in principle) and in this case, the extent that the branch church is bound by

[3] The purpose of existence of the religious order to which the branch church belongs and the function of the branch church to carry out for this purpose / Where the religious autonomy conflicts between the branch church and the religious order, whether the autonomy of the branch church is restricted (affirmative)

[4] In a case where the constitution and the implementation rules of the religious order of Gap church which prohibit the removal of pastors by the members of Gap church infringe on the independence of the branch church or the essence of the religious freedom, the case holding that the restriction of the removal of pastors according to the religious order's constitution not by the resolution of the members, but by the resolution of the members, is also an aspect of guaranteeing the status of the pastors who are in the position of the church's office and the approval procedures of the association and preventing disputes within the church and strengthening the autonomy and independence of the church as well as strengthening the autonomy of the church, in light of all relevant legal principles, including the fact that Gap church incorporates Gap church into the branch church of the religious order according to its own will and accepts the constitution and the implementation rules of the religious order as an autonomous norm, so long as the religious order constitution and the implementation rules of the Constitution comply with the trial procedures, it shall not be deemed that it violated

[1] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 31 and 40 of the Civil Act, Article 20 of the Constitution / [2] Articles 31 and 40 of the Civil Act, Article 20 of the Constitution / [3] Articles 31 and 40 of the Civil Act, Article 20 of the Constitution / [4] Articles 31 and 40 of the Civil Act, Article 20 of the Constitution

[2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da37775 Decided April 20, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 851) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2013Da78990 Decided December 11, 2014 (Gong2015Sang, 108)

Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Jong-joon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The ○○○○○○○○○○ Association (Attorney Political Equal, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2016Na26342 decided April 26, 2018

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, it can be recognized that the defendant's members held a temporary joint council and passed a resolution to dismiss the plaintiff who is a delegate pastor. Article 35 (2) of Part II of the Constitution of the religious order to which the defendant belongs (hereinafter "the religious order of this case") stipulates that a church shall recommend the recommendation of a secretary-general and make a recommendation that the church is a secretary-general, and shall process it when the party submits a letter of resignation by recommending that the church is a secretary-general, and Articles 4 (1), 5 (1) 7, and 6 (2) of Part III of the Constitution of the religious order do not require all the members (members) to be subject to a trial with the right to defend himself/herself, and shall not be subject to a trial with the right to defend himself/herself, and Article 26 (7) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea stipulates that the removal of an employee from office from office as one of the types of punishment by requisition is not recognized as a new voting.

The lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, comprehensively taking into account the constitution of the religious order and the implementation rules of the Constitution, determined that the authority to recommend a pastor to be a secretary is a union member, and that if a pastor does not submit a letter of resignation to the union, he can be punished for dismissal, etc. as prescribed by the Constitution of the religious order through the trial procedure, and thus, the decision to dismiss the plaintiff of the defendant joint council without undergoing the trial procedure is not only contrary to the above provisions of the Constitution, but also constitutes a resignation by a new vote prohibited by Article 26(7) of the

The lower court did not err in its judgment regarding the interpretation of the religious order constitution as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, accepted the Constitution and the implementation rules of the Constitution stipulated in the religious order following the entry into the religious order of this case, and the implementation rules of the Constitution are stipulated within the delegation scope in order to supplement the Constitution pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda to the religious order, and cannot be deemed as violating the provisions of the Constitution, such as Part II Political Article 77 (5) of the Constitution. Therefore,

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the validity of the constitutional enforcement rule, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

A. Where a new church with the substance of an unincorporated association is incorporated into a branch church to which a specific religious order belongs and forms a decision-making body and transfers a religious order as the representative of a branch church, there exists a difference depending on the body of the religious order, but in principle, a branch church is an unincorporated association that is independent from the religious order and the religious order is nothing more than the higher organization of the branch church in the religious internal relations. However, even if the branch church does not have its own rules or meets its rules, the Constitution prescribed by the religious order can be accepted as an autonomous norm corresponding to its rules of the church, but it is bound by the religious order to the extent that it does not infringe on the independence of the branch church or the essence of the religious freedom (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da3775, Apr. 20, 2006, etc.).

Each branch church shall aim at maintaining the unique characteristics of the religious order, such as the contents of the doctrine, and the religious order to maintain the religious order within the religious order. A religious order shall establish, revise, and interpret the Constitution of the religious order, if necessary for its existence purpose, handle various disputes, such as administrative disputes, and establish the qualification requirements for the members in the religious order, and shall establish the qualification requirements for the members in the religious order, and shall direct and supervise the branch church. The necessity to guarantee the autonomy of the religious organization applies not only to the branch church but also to the religious order which is the higher organization of the branch church. Therefore, the religious autonomy of both religious organizations shall be guaranteed. However, in this case, the branch church and the religious order may conflict with each other, but in light of the purpose of existence of the religious order, the autonomy of the branch church shall be subject to certain restrictions (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da78990, Dec. 11, 2014

B. The defendant asserts that the Constitution and the constitutional enforcement rules prohibiting the removal of pastors by the members of the church infringe on the independence of the branch church or the essence of the religious freedom, so the binding force against the defendant shall not be recognized.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, Article 35 (2) of Part II of the Constitution of the religious order stipulates that if a church recommends a church to the association of its members, the association shall recommend that it is a member of the association, and Part III of the Constitution of the religious order permits the church to impose punishment, such as suspension of affairs, dismissal from office, suspension from office, dismissal from office, etc. with respect to the pastors by filing a complaint, accusation, and the authority following the complaint, thereby recognizing a certain authority on the church as to whether it continues to hold a pastors. According to Articles 28 and 29 of Part II of the Constitution of the religious order, the resignation of a pastors is made through the inspection of the church's affairs and the approval of the church's affairs, not by the resolution of the church members, but by the resolution of the religious order's members, the restriction of the religious order's dismissal procedures according to the constitution of the religious order is not in violation of the Constitution and the autonomy and independence of the church as well as by the resolution of the religious order of this case.

C. Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the freedom of church, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)