[2026-07-16] Rebuttal Statement in Response to the Statement Issued by Citizens’ Solidarity for the Protection of Gwacheon

[2026-07-16] Rebuttal Statement in Response to the Statement Issued by Citizens’ Solidarity for the Protection of Gwacheon

Respected citizens, Gwacheon Church of Shincheonji Church of Jesus is issuing this statement to correct the factual inaccuracies contained in the statement released by the Citizens' Solidarity for Protection of Gwacheon on 7 July.

The Citizens’ Solidarity for Protection of Gwacheon issued a statement calling for the denial of Shincheonji Gwacheon Church’s application to change the use of the facility to a religious facility, citing Gwacheon’s unique urban structure, student safety, and the inconveniences caused by large gatherings. Their assertions regarding “resident safety” and “protection of the educational environment” amount to unilateral claims that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and seek to stigmatize a particular religion to drive it out of the local community. While we deeply understand parents’ concerns regarding safety and education, compelling a particular group to make sacrifices and endure discriminatory treatment based on unsubstantiated concerns and unsupported claims cannot be considered to serve the public interest.

Accordingly, we seek to correct the facts and clarify what constitutes genuine public interest based on law and principle.

First, the facility’s location in a commercial district does not constitute a legal basis to restrict the change of use.

When Shincheonji Gwacheon Church first moved into the facility 27 years ago, schools were already located nearby; however, no such incidents or harm have occurred in the past 27 years. It is unreasonable to now claim that the facility poses a risk solely based on its proximity to schools. In addition, Shincheonji Gwacheon Church does not engage in any evangelistic activities targeting students, and related claims are false and inconsistent with the facts.

The building of Shincheonji Gwacheon Church is located in the central commercial district, not within a school facility or its premises, and various uses, including religious facilities, are permitted in the area in principle under relevant laws and regulations. The fact that central Gwacheon is a compact, planned city means that various multi-use facilities, such as large supermarkets, large private academies, and large churches, inevitably coexist. Proximity to schools is merely a condition shared by most urban commercial facilities and cannot serve as a specific basis for discriminating against religious facilities alone.

Second, defining standardized attire and the number of worship attendees as “risk factors” constitutes discrimination that violates the principle of equality.

If the issue being raised is purely the concentration of a large number of people, there would be no reason to mention attire specifically, and doing so is a deliberate description intended to heighten a sense of threat. Even if the concern is the gathering in a standardized manner itself, this falls within the freedom of religious practice guaranteed by the Constitution and is a common practice also observed in Sunday services at large churches and Masses at cathedrals. Applying such a standard only to a particular facility goes against the principle of equality.

Furthermore, the “9,930” people cited by the Citizens' Solidarity refer only to the cumulative number of attendees per day, and it does not mean that they gathered all at once. Shincheonji Gwacheon Church has conducted worship services across multiple time slots for over a decade, and no traffic congestion or safety issues have arisen. The church has thoroughly implemented measures to maintain order and ensure safety, including deploying its own personnel and managing traffic, and it remains prepared to actively cooperate with local authorities going forward. If there are genuine safety concerns, the appropriate solution should be close cooperation with administrative authorities on traffic management, not forcing the church out of the facility.

Third, the claim regarding community conflicts runs contrary to the facts. Rather, the church has been making positive contributions to the local economy.

Members of Shincheonji Gwacheon Church have made practical contributions to Gwacheon's urban commercial district by consistently using nearby shops, restaurants, and markets before and after worship services. Even if there have been protests or rallies arising from certain matters involving individuals in the past, generalizing them as recurring conflicts is an exaggeration of the facts.

Moreover, it cannot be conclusively determined that the cause of, or responsibility for, such conflicts has a direct causal relationship with the change of use of the Shincheonji Gwacheon Church building. The establishment of genuine public order should begin not with suppressing lawful religious activities, but with preventing indiscriminate hate speech and unlawful demonstrations. This is a matter for administrative authorities and the police to manage the freedom of assembly together with public order, and it cannot serve as a basis for denying the existence of a religious facility. If the mere existence of conflicts is sufficient to justify forcing a group out of a facility, it would create a precedent in which actions taken by protesting parties could determine whether a religious facility is permitted to exist.

Fourth, the exercise of discretion by administrative authorities is also subject to constitutional limits.

If administrative authorities exercise their discretion on the basis of social hostility or unsubstantiated concerns over a particular religion, this constitutes an abuse or excess of administrative discretion. Restrictions on the freedom of religion must be based on a clear and present, specific danger, and distorted statistics and unsubstantiated concerns alone cannot satisfy that requirement.

Shincheonji Gwacheon Church does not take lightly the inconvenience and concerns felt by the citizens of Gwacheon. However, those concerns must not lead to discriminating against a particular religion. Equality before the law and freedom of religion are constitutional values that cannot be compromised, and denying legitimate legal rights while forcing unilateral sacrifice on a particular group cannot be justified as serving the public interest.

Once the statutory requirements are satisfied, the change of use of a building is a mandatory act that administrative authorities are required to carry out. Denying or delaying it based solely on claims that are inconsistent with the facts constitutes biased administration and a clear abuse of administrative discretion. We respectfully ask the judiciary and administrative authorities not to be swayed by biased public opinion, but to render a fair and prudent decision grounded solely in constitutional values and the rule of law.

16 July 2026 

Members of Shincheonji Gwacheon Church