2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiffs were the heads of Defendant C religious Organization Diplomatic Association D (hereinafter “Defendant church”) which is a branch church under Defendant C Religious Organization’s general assembly (hereinafter “Defendant FI”) and Defendant C Religious Organization E Workers’ Association (hereinafter “Defendant C Religious Association”) is an association under the Defendant’s general assembly having jurisdiction over the Defendant church.

B. On November 13, 2011, the Defendant church made a resolution to remove and leave the Plaintiffs on the grounds that the Plaintiff “the Plaintiff resisted against the passage of the agenda at the Joint Council and caused the Plaintiff to go against it” (hereinafter “the instant resolution of the Council”).

C. On December 3, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal against the instant party’s resolution with the Defendant Labor Union. On March 14, 2014, the Defendant Labor Union trial division recognized all the grounds for the disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs as indicated in the instant party’s resolution, and rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiffs shall transfer to another party by June 30, 2014, and if they refuse to comply therewith, they shall be expelled.” The Defendant Labor Union adopted a resolution to adopt the said party’s judgment on April 28, 2014 (hereinafter “instant party’s resolution”).

Plaintiff

A On May 7, 2014, and May 2, 2014, Plaintiff B filed an appeal against the instant resolution at the Defendant’s general meeting. The Defendant’s general meeting decided on October 28, 2014 that “the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed” (hereinafter “instant resolution at the general meeting”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 7 and 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 28-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the Plaintiffs’ assertion, the instant resolution of the political party, the resolution of the labor union, and the resolution of the general assembly were based on justifiable exercise of rights by the Plaintiffs, which cannot be deemed grounds for disciplinary action, and the contents and procedures of the resolution are all invalid.

3. As to the lawsuit of this case for which the plaintiffs seeking the invalidation of the resolution of the party council, the resolution of the union and the resolution of the general assembly respectively, the defendants are the defendants.