A. Defendant D indicated in the attached Form 3 drawings among the fourth floors of the building on the real estate list in attached Form 4, 18, 19, 20, 1, 17, 16, 21, 22,23.

A. The Plaintiff is a church that has 61 branch arts dividends, including “G” in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F.

B. H, around 1969, established the instant church and resigned from office as the sole supervisor of the instant church until 2012.

On the other hand, H H from January 2013, I expressed his intention of resignation on March 12, 2017 when performing the Plaintiff’s supervisory duty.

C. On March 13, 2017, H performed the duties of supervision, such as appointing the secretary general of a church on April 17, 2017, and appointing the secretary general of a church on April 17, 2017. On April 3, 2017, H issued an urgent disciplinary measure, such as removing Defendant D, J, and K, who is a pastor engaged in the activities in the community distribution of the Plaintiff church, and issued a notice of the moving of Defendant B, C, and E to Defendant B through text message (the revenue and dividend to Defendant B, the strong dividend to Defendant C, and the usual dividend to Defendant E) on April 5, 2017, and issued a disposition of dismissal and dismissal of each Defendant B, D, and each disposition of dismissal and dismissal against Defendant C and E.

In related cases, the following judgments, etc. were pronounced.

① The position of the Defendant church’s “supervision”, as prescribed by Article 7(5) of the operating principles, seems to represent the Defendant church and have personnel rights against the Plaintiffs.

However, H, at the time of the removal of the instant case, was not a legitimate representative due to the declaration of intention of resignation from the supervisory position on January 3, 2013, and thereafter exercised its authority within and outside the country as the representative of the Defendant church.

I resigned on March 12, 2017, and H actually performed the duties of supervision without going through the administrative conference on supervisory taking charge of duties. It is reasonable to deem that H, at the time of the removal of the instant case, knew or could have known that it was not a legitimate representative of the Defendant church.

Ultimately, the removal of this case is legitimate.