1. The Defendant’s decision on disciplinary action against the Plaintiff on April 1, 2010 and the expulsion of the Plaintiff on January 19, 201 is invalid.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a Buddhist religious organization consisting of temples, believerss, and Buddhist believers, the head office of the Dridge from February 10, 2009, and the Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant Religious Order. The Plaintiff is a Buddhist religious organization consisting of temples, believers, and Buddhist believers.

B. The defendant's internal rules concerning disciplinary action 1) The defendant's constitution, which is the highest norm inside the defendant's internal jurisdiction, has a head of the court of first instance and a review support center, and the head of the court of first instance shall conduct disciplinary action (Article 125(2)), under the conditions as prescribed by the subordinate law, by the chairperson of the court of first instance and the review support center (Article 125(2)). The disciplinary action is conducted by the type of documents reprimand (Article 127), disciplinary procedure, flight category and other matters necessary for punishment (Article 129). 2) The defendant's subordinate law provides for the contents and the order of seriousness concerning the disciplinary action, and detailed provisions concerning the person who committed misconduct in which the defendant may be punished by a disciplinary action (Article 45).

(Articles 46 through 54(3) of the above Defendant’s Hunting and Religious Law (hereinafter the above provisions are referred to as “Hunting of the Constitution,” “Involving Law,” “Involving Law,” and “Involving Law,” etc.

(C) The contents of the instant case are as indicated in the attached Form No. 1 and the attached Form No. 3. C. The first disciplinary decision against the Plaintiff and the provisional measure of suspension of validity thereof are 1) Defendant 1, in accordance with the request for disciplinary action by the chief of the General Assistance Department of the Defendant’s Department of the Armed Forces (hereinafter “the first disciplinary decision”) on April 1, 2010 against the Plaintiff on the grounds of the following disciplinary reasons (hereinafter “the first disciplinary decision”).

[Grounds for Disciplinary Action] ① On November 27, 2009, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s request for submission of data by a staff member of the Family Department visiting C to investigate the suspicion of distributing tamp documents in relation to the 33th general secretary-general election. Such demand constitutes verbal abuse and rioting, and falls under Article 48 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Round.

(hereinafter “Disciplinary Grounds 1”. The following grounds for disciplinary action are also referred to as the same method. (2) The Plaintiff is also entitled to disciplinary action.