1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff, the defendant, C, and D are members of the E church.

B. On November 27, 2017, the Association sold a building F in Busan-gu, Busan-gu.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. On November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion E-Appellee sold a building located in Busan-gu F in Busan-gu, Busan-do, and thereafter, the Plaintiff kept the funds of KRW 170,000,000 of the E church in the passbook in the name of the Defendant.

During that resolution, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the members of E society, such as C, and D, agree to withdraw from the H of the G religious organization, and the defendant is present as the "I church" without going through EM.

However, the above resolution of withdrawal is null and void in violation of the Constitution of the G religious organization, so the defendant is obligated to return the funds of the E church to the plaintiff, who is the representative of the E church, KRW 170 million.

3. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit.

A lawsuit concerning collective ownership of the properties of a church shall be filed in the name of the church itself, which is an unincorporated association, or only in the form of an essential co-litigation as all the members of the church who are parties to the case and the members of the church shall be the representative of the church or the resolution of the general meeting.

Even if the lawsuit cannot be a party to the lawsuit, and this legal principle is the same to the case where the lawsuit is brought as a preservation act of collective ownership property.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da21303, Sept. 5, 1995; 2004Da44971, Sept. 15, 2005). In light of the above legal principles, the instant lawsuit is only a name of the E society itself or all the members of the E society can become the parties. Thus, even if the Plaintiff is the representative of the E society, it is not eligible for the Plaintiff to seek the return of the E society funds against the Defendant even if he is the representative of the E society.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

4. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus dismissed.