1. The Defendant’s “resolution to dismiss a pastor against the Plaintiff,” which was adopted by the Joint Council on October 18, 2015, is null and void.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The status of the parties to the defendant church is a church established on April 8, 1906 and currently belongs to the Em Union under C religious organizations D (hereinafter “instant religious order”). The plaintiff is a person who was appointed as a member of the defendant church on December 6, 2007 but was a delegated member on November 29, 2008.

B. Since the occurrence of disputes between the members and the convening of a joint council from 2010 to 2010, the conflict between the Plaintiff, some of the heads of the joint councils, and the members regarding the operation of the church has been settled among the members supporting the Plaintiff and their opposing members. 2) The head of the Defendant church demanded the Plaintiff to convene a joint council on May 24, 2015, but the Plaintiff did not comply with it.

Since then, on June 23, 2015, 400 members of the above funeral and the defendant church demanded the plaintiff to hold a joint meeting with a written petition for convening a meeting, which covers the "resolution to dismiss a pastor" as an agenda item, but the plaintiff rejected it.

3) On July 17, 2015, the above generals, etc. filed an application for permission to convene a joint council with the Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court for the removal of the representative of the defendant church (Seoul District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court Branch of the 2015 Gohap3000), and received a decision to permit convening a joint council from the above court on September 21, 2015. (C) The members of the defendant church who decided to dismiss the plaintiff was holding a temporary joint council on October 18, 2015 in accordance with the above convocation permission decision (hereinafter “instant joint council”).

At the time, the Fro president was elected as the Speaker, and the meeting was proceeded.

The F funeral explained about the purpose of the Joint Council of this case at the time, and following the appointment of Plaintiff A to the present church, conflicts have deepened due to the absence of communication between the party members and the sexual intercourses, and the reality of the church at the crisis of A's job abandonment, abuse of authority, and exclusive behavior is no longer possible.