손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is examined together with the evidence additionally submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court of
Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the same judgment as stated in paragraph (3) to the allegations emphasized by the plaintiff in this court. Thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance
2. Parts 2, 7, and 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which were written after the dismissal, are as follows: “Plaintiff was the chairman of the Building Committee of the G church before H was left, but I was elected as the chairman of the Building Committee by voting of the building committee of the building committee of the building members around November 201.”
The plaintiff was the chairman of the Building Committee of the G church, but I was elected as the chairman of the Building Committee by vote of the members of the Building Committee after H was dismissed.On the 2nd sentence of the judgment of the first instance, "this Court" in the 2nd sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, "I was sentenced from this Court," and "I was sentenced (this Court 2016Gohap40)" in the 2nd sentence of 17 to 18th sentence, "(this Court 2016 High Court 2016Gohap40)," and the appeal of E (Seoul High Court 2017No248) was dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive."
Part 13 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted from November 201, 201.
3. Additional determination
A. According to Article 59(5)(d) of the Constitution of the Defendant’s religious order, a member appointed by the head of the local council can independently operate a reconciliation procedure under Article 8 of the Discipline Act, which is the main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion.