Article 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea guarantees equality before the law, while Article 20 protects freedom of religion. These fundamental rights are not privileges reserved for groups that enjoy widespread social acceptance or for religions favoured by the majority. Rather, the true strength of the Constitution and the rule of law is demonstrated when those same protections are extended to minority groups that may face social criticism, hostility, or prejudice.

Against this backdrop, the appellate ruling issued on 12th August in the administrative lawsuit between Shincheonji Church of Jesus and Gwacheon City over a change in building use raises significant questions.

At its core is a fundamental issue: Can opposition to a particular religion justify restricting the constitutional rights of citizens who practise that religion?

The appellate court overturned the lower court's decision and ruled in favour of Gwacheon City. It determined that the city's acceptance of a 2006 report concerning the change of use did not constitute a valid permit under the revised Building Act and concluded that the building remained classified as a “business facility.”

The court also considered collective complaints, potential regional conflict, concerns regarding the residential and educational environment, and traffic and parking issues. Based on these factors, it concluded that there was a substantial public-interest justification for refusing the requested change.

However, whether resident opposition, social tensions, or the possibility of conflict can legitimately justify restrictions on fundamental rights—including religious freedom and property rights—is an issue that warrants particularly careful scrutiny.

The first-instance court reached a different conclusion. It held that restrictions on fundamental rights could not readily be justified by vague concerns, a large number of complaints, or negative perceptions surrounding a particular religion and its missionary activities. Instead, the court indicated that such restrictions should be supported by concrete and objectively verifiable risks.

The fact that two courts reached fundamentally different conclusions regarding the same building, the same surrounding circumstances, and the same application raises an important question: What changed sufficiently to justify such a dramatic reversal?

A significant departure from the original judgment requires a clear explanation capable of convincing the public that the legal and factual circumstances genuinely warranted a different outcome. Without such an explanation, concerns may arise that broader social sentiment or the prevailing political atmosphere influenced the legal assessment.

Another issue deserves attention.

Following the ruling, Gwacheon City reportedly characterised the outcome as “a result obtained through the united response of citizens, the city, and the council.”

But whose views does the city mean when it refers to the “will of the citizens”?

For some time, opposition to Shincheonji has been organised in Gwacheon, particularly among elements of the Protestant community. There have been instances in which the views of this opposition movement have been presented or perceived as though they represented the views of Gwacheon residents as a whole.

However, several local merchants have expressed a different perspective. They voiced dissatisfaction with efforts to prevent the facility from operating normally and said, in effect, that they hoped the Shincheonji Church would be allowed to resume normal operations so that the surrounding commercial district could once again be revitalised.

If different views exist within the community, Gwacheon City should consider whether it is misleading the public by presenting the position of one side as though it represents the entirety of public sentiment.

Administrative litigation is not an election in which the side with the greatest popular support wins. Its purpose is to determine whether an administrative action has a clear legal basis, whether a restriction on fundamental rights is genuinely necessary, and whether any such restriction has been limited to the minimum extent required.

If minority rights can be overridden simply because the majority voice is louder, the fundamental meaning of the rule of law is inevitably weakened.

The circumstances surrounding the case also raise a broader question.

Did religious hostility towards Shincheonji—particularly hostility arising from established denominations characterising the organization as a “heresy” or “cult”—become amplified through portions of the media? Did that public sentiment, in turn, influence Gwacheon City's response, eventually contributing to administrative and judicial restrictions affecting a particular religious group?

If hostility towards a religion ultimately develops into administrative sanctions, the consequences for the rule of law are deeply troubling.

The state is not a religious authority charged with determining which religion is right or wrong. Its responsibility is to remain neutral and protect the constitutional rights of all citizens equally, regardless of whether their religious beliefs are popular or belong to a minority.

The concept of “public interest” should not become a catch-all justification for restricting fundamental rights.

Where fundamental rights are limited on public-interest grounds, the risks relied upon to justify those restrictions should be demonstrated through concrete and objective evidence. If vague concerns, social discomfort, or collective opposition can simply be repackaged as “public interest,” the rule of law risks being transformed into what is effectively a tyranny of the majority.

This raises another legitimate question: If an established and widely accepted church had submitted the same application for the same building under the same circumstances, would Gwacheon City and the courts have applied precisely the same standards?

The credibility of the law is ultimately measured by whether it protects unpopular minorities with the same standards it applies to powerful or widely accepted groups.

Gwacheon City should therefore be cautious about presenting the views of one particular group as the collective voice of the community. Likewise, the constitutional rights of citizens should not be restricted simply because their religion is unpopular or viewed negatively by others.

If such a principle were accepted, the consequences would extend far beyond Shincheonji. At stake would be the constitutional guarantees of equality before the law, freedom of religion, and the rule of law itself.

Source: vo.la/Zwc2fEx