1. The plaintiff A church's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff B's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Judgment on plaintiff church's lawsuit

A. The Defendant’s prior defense was not a legitimate representative authority who can represent the Plaintiff church as a state of driving away from the Plaintiff church at present and brought the instant lawsuit without a resolution of the general members’ meeting of the Plaintiff church.

B. As to the preservation of collective ownership, a resolution of a general meeting of members under Article 276(1) of the Civil Act or a procedure stipulated by the articles of incorporation shall be conducted pursuant to the articles of incorporation. In cases where a church which is an unincorporated association files a lawsuit as an act of preserving its collective ownership property, it shall undergo a resolution of the general meeting of members or undergo the procedure stipulated by the articles of incorporation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17062, Dec. 27, 2007).

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the lawsuit of this case of the plaintiff church was filed without a legitimate general meeting resolution, it is unlawful as a lawsuit filed without a legitimate general meeting resolution.

2. Determination as to the plaintiff B's claim

A. On January 24, 2015, Plaintiff B lent KRW 70,000 to the Defendant around February 24, 2015 (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”) stating that the Defendant shall repay KRW 70,000,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant shall pay KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff B by the end of February 2, 2015.

(2) Although the Defendant did not pay KRW 30,000,000 among them, the Defendant asserts that according to the repayment agreement of each of the instant claims, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 30,000,000 and damages for delay from March 1, 2015 to the date of full payment. (2) The Defendant asserts that each of the instant claims was made by intimidation, coercion, etc. in the course of liquidation of inhuman rights relations, and was made out by the Defendant during the process of liquidation of inhuman rights relations, and constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act or a declaration of intention under Article 107 of the Civil Act.