This image is for illustrative purposes only and is not directly related to the article. [Getty Images Bank]
This image is for illustrative purposes only and is not directly related to the article. [Getty Images Bank]

A court has upheld a ruling that Chongshin University's indefinite suspension of a student who joined an LGBTQ rights group was invalid. The court acknowledged that Christianity is widely known to oppose homosexuality but said it cannot deny the reality that new interpretations and arguments on the issue are emerging.

According to legal sources, Seoul High Court's Civil Division 14-1, presided over by Judge Nam Yang-woo, ruled in favor of the student, identified only as A, on July 16 — the same outcome as the first trial. A had sued the university, arguing the indefinite suspension was invalid.

A, a theology student, had been set to graduate in February 2024. Three months before graduation, however, A received an indefinite suspension for joining a campus LGBTQ group. A was also ordered to undergo special guidance requiring both internal and external education.

Under Chongshin University's disciplinary rules, acts contrary to the virtues of a Christian believer — including supporting or engaging in homosexuality — are subject to discipline. The university determined that A, by joining a group that supports homosexuality, had engaged in conduct amounting to support for and sympathy toward homosexuality.

In January 2024, A filed a lawsuit challenging the disciplinary action.

During the trial, A's legal team argued the disciplinary rule was unconstitutional and void, saying it violated fundamental rights including freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. They added that even if the grounds for discipline were recognized, the punishment was an abuse of discretion and therefore unlawful.

The first court partially accepted A's arguments. In August last year, it ruled the indefinite suspension invalid.

The first court did, however, recognize the grounds for discipline. It noted that Chongshin University had long maintained a tradition rooted in Christian faith and that admission is limited to baptized Christians.

The court also said the religious body to which Chongshin University belongs is known to oppose homosexuality, and that whether homosexuality contradicts Christian doctrine is a matter on which courts should exercise restraint. It nonetheless found that A's joining of the LGBTQ group constituted conduct contrary to the university's disciplinary rule against behavior that violates the virtues of a Christian believer.

The indefinite suspension itself, however, was found to be excessive and therefore invalid.

The first court said an indefinite suspension strips a student of all rights, and that because the suspension can only be lifted with the university president's approval — with no time limit — such a measure must be applied with great care.

It also said it cannot deny the reality that new interpretations and arguments about homosexuality are emerging, and that it is difficult to view A's joining of the group — to resolve intellectual curiosity or personal reflection about theology — as conduct serious enough to warrant an indefinite suspension.

The court further noted that the university had imposed indefinite suspensions on students who committed sexual harassment or assault, and said it is difficult to conclude that A's conduct carries the same degree of illegality as acts subject to criminal punishment.

Chongshin University appealed, but the appeals court reached the same conclusion, also ruling the indefinite suspension invalid.

During the appeals process, the university argued that A had shown no remorse and that remorse should be treated as an important criterion in determining the severity of discipline. The court rejected that argument.

The appeals court said compelling a student to make a particular ethical judgment could amount to a violation of freedom of conscience as guaranteed by the Constitution.

It added that receiving an indefinite suspension just before graduation would cause A significant disadvantage in completing studies and finding employment, and that there was no evidence A had actively taken actions to harm the university or its denomination, or disrupted campus order — beyond exchanging private messages on KakaoTalk within the group.

The court concluded that a comparatively lighter disciplinary measure, short of an indefinite suspension, would be sufficient to achieve the disciplinary purpose.

The ruling has not yet been finalized, as the university still has time to appeal.


notstrong@heraldcorp.com