1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. At around April 2009, AG moved back to Defendant AD, and tried to manage conflicts between the members, considering the appropriateness of retirement benefits that Defendant AD received, while Defendant AF, etc. criticizeed the way of operating AG churches, etc., and submitted a written petition demanding the AI labor union to be a recommendation company for AG.

B. Some of the members, including the Plaintiffs supporting AG, established a “AJ Committee on Emergency Countermeasures against the AJ Schools,” thereby preventing the activities of the AJ Committee, which was dispatched from July 2012 to September 2013 by the AJ Committee, from engaging in the “AJ Committee on Emergency Measures against the AJ Schools.”

C. In the process of continuing disputes, such as complaints, complaints, and complaints, between AG’s defense and counterclaims, the trial court at the general assembly of AH Religious Organizations was subject to a two-year disciplinary action of suspension from office on August 25, 2015, and the AI labor union has the same year.

9. 29. Defendant AD seeed it as the president of the party conference as the AJ decision-making body. D.

On January 3, 2016 and 23th of the same month, the AJ Council passed a resolution to recommend or recommend the Plaintiffs, and on January 3, 2016, nine members including Plaintiff B, etc. request the resignation authorities to enter buildings, to refuse to leave, to refuse to leave, to interfere with worship, to interfere with church peace, and to prohibit entry from 17 members including Plaintiff A, etc. from February 7, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant resolution”). The above resolution of the church conference was published in the church bulletin.

E. On February 21, 2016, the church bulletin was published by stating that 26 Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff K, R, and S are prohibited from entering the church and requesting the prohibition of obstruction of worship by stating that 26 Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff K, R, and S are prohibited from interfering with worship.

F. On February 24, 2016, 75 members, including the Plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of the political party (Seoul Western District Court 2016Gahap4555, hereinafter “prior lawsuit”) against the AJJ on February 24, 2016, and the said judgment confirmed that a part of the resolution of the party, including the instant resolution, is null and void, and both appeals and appeals are filed.