1. All appeals against Defendant A religious organization B and L shall be dismissed;

2. The following from among the judgments of the first instance.

1. An appeal as to whether an appeal filed by the defendant church or L is lawful is to seek revocation or alteration of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself. Therefore, an appeal against the judgment in favor of the appellant cannot be permitted, and whether the judgment is disadvantageous to the appellant shall, in principle, be determined at the time of filing an appeal based on the text of the judgment, on the basis of the standard of the order of the judgment. If the appeal was to be lodged, there is no benefit of appeal even if there is

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da40696 delivered on March 27, 1992, and Supreme Court Decision 95Nu10587 delivered on December 26, 1995, etc.). Defendant church and L asserted that the claim of this case by the plaintiffs was first dismissed in the court of first instance and the conjunctive dismissal was made. The judgment of the court of first instance dismissed all the lawsuit against the above defendants, and thus, the above defendants who won the lawsuit in whole did not have any interest in filing an appeal.

This part of the appeal is unlawful.

2. The summary of the case and the grounds for the reasoning of this part of the plaintiffs' assertion by the court are as follows: (a) the "the judgment of the first instance court" under Section 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "the judgment of the court of first instance"; and (b) the contents of the "attached Form 20" (hereinafter referred to as the "attached Form") are as stated in Sections 3, 13, 7, and 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Defendants are in violation of the subject of judicial review and the principle of supplement and effectiveness. Since religious activities are guaranteed by the State’s freedom from interference with the freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion under the Constitution, the court, which is a state agency, does not, in principle, regulate the rights and obligations or legal relations of a general citizen, thereby failing to conduct the substantive deliberation and determination of the pertinent religious organization.