손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
(a) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3.
1) The plaintiff is a branch church affiliated with the Diplomatic Association EM (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff church") of the Korea Religious Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff church") on December 21, 2003. However, from April 2004, the plaintiff was appointed as the member of the plaintiff church, but there was a division between the members who concealed the defendant from April 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's side") and the members who concealed Frographs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's side"), and in the process, on April 10, 2005, the defendant resolution was passed to the effect that the plaintiff church withdraws from the above church.
3) On April 28, 2005, a trial court under the E-EU dismissed the Defendant from the position of a member of the Diplomatic Group D of A religious Organizations and removed from the position of a member of the Plaintiff church. The above trial court is a non-party G, H, I, J, K, K, L, M, and N (hereinafter “G, etc.”).
(4) On June 27, 2005, the Plaintiff church also filed a lawsuit against Nonparty O, P, and Q (hereinafter “O”) newly occupied by the Defendant, G, and the Defendant to the effect that the said Plaintiff church will transfer the real estate or motor vehicle owned by the Plaintiff church or move out of this. The Plaintiff church was rendered a favorable judgment.
In the first instance court (Seoul Eastern District Court 2007Gahap3474, 2008Gahap618, 208 Gahap618, 2008) the Defendants appealed, but the appeal is dismissed in the second instance (Seoul High Court 2008Na7695, 2008Na76701, 208Na76701, 2001). However, according to the modification of the Plaintiff’s purport of the appeal, the request for extradition of some buildings and the request for eviction of the rest of the building is accepted. The Defendants appealed again (Supreme Court 2009Da67665, 6762, 2072).