2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Defendant B’s status as a party (hereinafter “Defendant church”) is a church belonging to E religious organizations, and the Plaintiff is a pastor who works in the Defendant church from December 1, 1978 to early 2007, and Defendant D and C are the head of the Defendant church.

B. (1) On February 25, 2007, the defendant church held a joint council on February 25, 2007, and decided to provide the plaintiff with the company house registered in the name of the plaintiff under the conditions of treating the plaintiff as the member of the defendant church while changing the plaintiff who had been in the office for not less than 20 years as the member of the church to the member of the plaintiff, and pay 70% of the case cost of the remaining member of the defendant church as retirement allowance to the plaintiff (hereinafter “the resolution of this case”).

The Defendant church held a meeting to enforce the instant resolution on March 18, 2007 to pay the retirement allowance of 200 million won in lump sum, and to pay 70% of the monthly allowance for the case of the follow-up trees each month, but at the later time, the Defendant church decided to pay the remainder in lump sum (10 years of the payment criteria for lump sum and lump sum payment) according to the circumstances of the Defendant church, and paid 200 million won as retirement allowance to the Plaintiff and paid the honorarium from March 2007 to May 208.

B. In the process of dispute between the Plaintiff, Defendant C, and D, the issues concerning the request for the replacement of the Defendant church and the financial management of Defendant C’s church, and the conflict between the Plaintiff, Defendant C, and D has occurred since early 2006, and the members have been divided, and in the process, the conflict between the Plaintiff, the said Defendants, and both members has been continued.

around June 2006, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with Defendant C, D, etc. on the grounds of the act of misconduct and failure in the finances of the Defendant church, and the FEU trial court rendered a judgment that “Defendant C, D, etc. shall be removed.”

As to this, Defendant C and D filed an appeal to the Assembly of Religious Organizations, and delegated pastors and senior pastors to the Plaintiff.