2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. Defendant B’s church (hereinafter “Defendant church”) is a church affiliated with E religious organizations located in the Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The Plaintiff was a member of the Defendant church since June 1996.

B. On July 28, 2013, the defendant church and the plaintiff decided upon the F (BS) and the plaintiff's "Noting the plaintiff's church from outside of the church and causing harm to the members, and the plaintiff voluntarily renounced the status of the members on June 30, 2013. Thus, the defendant church violated the order of the defendant church and 47 members of the F who violated the Constitution of the church and raised a question about the church and the opinion of the members of the church, and decided upon the disposition of "No allowing the plaintiff's church to enter the plaintiff's church that leaves the church on its own."

C. Since August 4, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant church to attend the worship at around 11:00 on August 4, 2013, and the Plaintiff was dismissed from entering the Defendant church’s to 20 to 30 members of the Defendant church.

Accordingly, on August 7, 2013, the Plaintiff accepted part of the Plaintiff’s application against the Defendant church on the ground that it applied for a provisional measure to allow access to the church including indirect compulsory performance (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Kahap561) and dismissed on November 11, 2013. However, from the appeal case (Seoul High Court 2013Ra1734), it is unclear whether the Plaintiff expressed his/her genuine intention to withdraw, including the Plaintiff’s loss of all rights to use and benefit from the property of the Defendant church, on March 13, 2014, on the ground that “The fact that the Plaintiff expressed his/her genuine intention to withdraw including the loss of all rights to use and benefit from the property of the Defendant church, as prescribed by its articles of incorporation, is not a resolution to leave the Defendant church, and thereafter, the Defendant’s objection (Seoul High Court 2014Kahap366) was dismissed.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff went to the Defendant church to attend the worship on March 30, 2014, but the G, who was in charge of parking management as the members of the Defendant church, along with the bath theory.