[1] Whether the effect of a disciplinary action against a member of a religious organization itself is subject to judicial review (negative)

[2] The limitation of judicial review in a case where the decision-making of a religious organization that affects the status of individuals in a religious organization is involved in the interpretation of religious doctrine or religion

[3] In a case where Gap church's members Eul et al. and other members including the members of Gap church et al. passed a resolution to remove Eul et al. from the school in accordance with the provisional constitution of a religious order at a regular church, the case holding that the matters concerning the above removal resolution and its validity are not subject to judicial review

[1] Religious activities are guaranteed by the State’s freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion under the Constitution. Accordingly, as regards matters concerning the internal relations of religious organizations, courts, as State agencies, should ensure the autonomy of the pertinent religious organization to the maximum extent possible by failing to conduct substantive deliberation and determination, unless they regulate the rights and duties or legal relations of ordinary citizens, in principle. Meanwhile, imposing sanctions on a person who has corruption as a member of the religious organization to establish that doctrine and maintain the order of religious organization and religious activities by religious means, belongs to the territory of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, as a regulation inside the religious organization, in light of the fact that sanctions against a person who has corruption as a member of the religious organization are within the territory of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, the legitimacy of disciplinary action against the member of the religious organization on the premise that a dispute over the specific rights or legal relations of the members is justified, regardless of

[2] Unless there is an internal regulation within a religious organization that takes disciplinary action or sanction against a person of corruption as a member of the religious organization, it is an act under the organization law that affects the status of individuals enjoying within the religious organization and does not necessarily exclude the subject of judicial review or deny the interests of lawsuits. Even so, the autonomy that a religious organization should establish its doctrine based on the principle of the freedom of religion and the separation of religion and religion under the Constitution and maintain the order of religion as much as possible. Therefore, if the decision-making of the religious organization is closely related to the interpretation of religious doctrine or religion, it is desirable to restrain judicial involvement in the decision-making even if such decision-making affects the status of individuals enjoying from the religious organization.

[3] In a case where Gap church passed a resolution to remove Eul et al. from its school on the basis of the provisional constitution of a religious order since disputes surrounding the election of Gap church members Eul et al. and other members including Gap church members including Gap church members Eul et al. have deepened with the conflict due to the separation of the church members, the case holding that it is difficult to see that Gap church's resolution to establish religious doctrine as a religious organization through the removal resolution and maintain religious order, while it was intended to promote the stability and harmony of organization by excluding the members of the church who conduct the act of removing the church from the members, the above removal resolution and its effectiveness should be left to the internal autonomy of the church, and since the dispute over the separation of the church members as one of the causes or reasons for the removal resolution, it is difficult to view that the above removal resolution is related to the construction of the church members or religion of the religious order to which Gap church and the Gap church belong as the premise for the claim for specific rights and duties, and that it is difficult to see that the above resolution has a legitimate authority to convene a religious order on the grounds and its justification.

[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 / [3] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 20 of the Constitution

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da10388 Decided June 24, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1254) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da77609 Decided April 12, 2007, etc./ [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da63104 Decided February 10, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 404)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Ham, Attorney Kang Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

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

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na79380 decided April 8, 2009

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

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

Religious activities are guaranteed by the constitutional freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion. Accordingly, as to matters concerning the internal relations of religious organizations, courts, as state agencies, should ensure the autonomy of the pertinent religious organization as much as possible by failing to conduct substantive deliberation and determination, in principle, insofar as such matters are not regulated by the rights and obligations or legal relations of the general public. Meanwhile, imposing sanctions on a person who has misconduct as a member of the religious organization in order to establish that doctrine and maintain the order of religious organizations and religion, constitutes the territory of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, which is a regulation inside the religious organization, in light of the fact that sanctions against a religious organization in a religious manner are within the territory of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, the legitimacy of disciplinary action against the members of the religious organization, even if there is a dispute over the specific rights and legal relations of the members, the validity of such disciplinary action itself cannot be determined by making it an object of judicial review (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da10388, Jun. 24, 2005>

The court below determined on September 30, 2007 that the plaintiffs and the members including the plaintiffs and the defendant 1, who were in the position of internal collector, the conflict between the defendant's head, the defendant's association and the defendant's temporary church's removal from the military register "the following persons shall be removed from the military register: 1. A person who was removed from the military register without a written statement and whose address is unknown for one year shall be removed from the military register; 2. A person who was not present in the craft course for one year without a reason shall be free from the military register; 3. A person who was absent from the military register for the purpose of concealing law acts; 1. A person who left the military register for one year without a reason; 3. A person who left the military register for the purpose of concealing law acts; 1. The court below determined that the defendant's temporary resolution on the plaintiffs' removal from the military register based on Article 37 of the Constitution's provisional resolution on the plaintiffs' temporary resolution on the grounds that the defendant's temporary resolution on the grounds of this case's constitution's establishment and excluded.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged in the grounds

On the other hand, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the act under the organization law that affects the status of individuals enjoying within a religious organization, rather than the internal regulation of a religious organization that takes disciplinary action or sanctions against a person of corruption as a member of the school by religious means, does not necessarily mean that he/she is excluded from judicial review or that he/she does not necessarily deny the interests of the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da63104, Feb. 10, 2006). However, even so, a religious organization should establish its doctrine based on the freedom of religion and the separation of religion and religion under the Constitution and the autonomy that maintains the order of religion. Therefore, if the decision-making of a religious organization is closely related to the interpretation of a religious doctrine or religion, it is desirable to restrain judicial involvement in the decision-making even if such decision-making affects the status of individuals within a religious organization.

According to the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, around 2006, Plaintiff 3 filed a complaint with Nonparty 1 as an instructor to hold a sub-committee, on the ground that Nonparty 1 did not take part in the religious order. On February 15, 2007, Plaintiff 3 recommended Nonparty 1 to carry out his/her duties more shockingly, and made a non-prosecution by recommending Nonparty 1 to file a complaint with Nonparty 1 on February 15, 2007. The facts leading up to the resolution of this case as a result of the deepening conflicts between the plaintiffs and the standing trees and the defendant and the defendant's members. On the other hand, Nonparty 1 did not act as one of the causes or causes of the resolution of this case regarding the non-party 1's sexual intercourse. Thus, the defendant's depth in the interpretation of the religious order of this case and the resolution of this case were related to the interpretation of the religious order of this case.

Furthermore, in addition to the following circumstances revealed by the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the removal of this case and its validity are not subject to judicial review. In other words, it is difficult to view that the validity of the removal of this case is a matter that is the premise of a claim for specific rights and obligations (the plaintiff is unable to use or gain profit from the church building, which is collective ownership as the removal resolution of this case, or participate in the worship, but it is only a subsequent effect following the removal resolution of this case, and it cannot be deemed as a dispute as to the rights or legal relations separate from the validity of the removal resolution). ② According to the provisional constitution of the Korea Egyptism, it is difficult to view that the General Assembly Adjudication Committee's final judgment is difficult to view that the removal of this case and its validity are legitimate in light of the notion of legitimate authority of the resolution of the church of this case, and that it is difficult for the local assembly adjudication committee to have a legitimate resolution of the resolution of this case as an autonomous resolution of the general assembly adjudication committee of this case.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)