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

A. The defendant is a non-corporate body consisting of the believers among private taxi business entities in Daegu area, and the plaintiffs are the members of the defendant.

In addition to religious activities, the defendant operates the call taxi center where the plaintiffs are taxi engineers.

B. On February 3, 2011, the Defendant entered into a contract with the F that operates E filling stations (hereinafter “E”), E without compensation, to provide the Defendant with the call taxi terminals, meters, law stations, call centers offices, etc., and the Defendant’s members entered into a contract with the Defendant to charge LPG gas in excess of a certain monthly amount.

After the conclusion of the above contract, the Defendant prepared a “written confirmation of acceptance and installation of the device” and received an explanation and signature of the terms of the contract from its members.

C. After the occurrence of a dispute over the issue of falling short of the amount of obligation of LPG gas, the Defendant and F drafted a memorandum of understanding on March 11, 2013, stating that “The installment to be installed from January 2013 shall be paid by each of the Defendant members to E by automatic transfer,” etc. Accordingly, the Defendant announced the above matters to its members and demanded them to sign a written consent for automatic transfer transfer.

However, on August 19, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant ( Daegu District Court 2013Gahap7091, hereinafter “former District Court”) seeking the performance of the obligation on the receipt and installation certificate of the above device and the suspension of the request for the preparation of automatic transfer consent (hereinafter “the foregoing lawsuit”).

E. Accordingly, on August 27, 2013, the Defendant held a disciplinary committee and rendered a decision to temporarily suspend the operation of the call terminal until the end of the lawsuit prior to the completion of the lawsuit prior to the completion of the lawsuit prior to the completion of the lawsuit prior to the filing of the judgment (hereinafter “instant disposition of suspension of departure”).

F. On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the measure of suspension of call on the ground that the Defendant held a new disciplinary committee on September 16, 2013 and revoked the measure of suspension of call on the ground that the measure of suspension of call was revoked.