2. The plaintiff's claim against defendant D.

A. The plaintiff is a person who was the registered representative of the defendant church, and the defendant D is the representative of the defendant church.

B. On September 13, 2015, the Defendant church opened a trial on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant trial”) and received education on spawn activities from an E religious organization that is a religious group, and went into the Defendant church and went into the religious organization and converted it into a confluence to teach the E religious organization, and caused the Plaintiff to feel ties between the church and the members, and accordingly, the Defendant church issued a registration expulsion and the disposition of visiting the church.

C. On the same day, Defendant D sent a text message to the members of the Defendant church to the effect that “Plaintiffs, after receiving education on the teaching activities at the E religious organization, went into the Defendant church and went into the order of converging them, did not open to the meeting despite having received an opportunity to open the meeting.” Defendant D sent a text message to the effect that “the Plaintiff is an E religious organization,” which reads “the Plaintiff is an E religious organization,” and that “the Plaintiff is a member of the E religious organization, etc.” (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant text message”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, summary of the argument of the parties concerned in the whole pleadings, and plaintiff 1) The judgment of this case regulates the rights and obligations or legal relations of the general citizen of the plaintiff, such as the plaintiff's personality right, the right to pursue happiness, the right to free religious life, and the right to the property of the defendant church, and infringement of the plaintiff's right to the property of the defendant church. Thus, the judgment of this case against the defendant church was invalidated without prior notification, in violation of Articles 21 and 24 of the B-M Ordinance on the Right of the Religious Organization Assembly.

The defendant church conducted the trial of this case verbally, did not present any evidence, and the judgment on December 22, 2015 also took place.