1. The appointment of the Defendant of D on March 17, 2015, who appointed D as the chief knowledge of the F located in Chungcheongnam-gun E, Chungcheong-gun, is null and void.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff A is an owner of F in the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter "the inspection of this case"), who operates the inspection of this case, and the plaintiff B is the plaintiff's grandchildren.

B. The instant temple was registered under the jurisdiction of the Defendant on October 15, 1962, and was registered as a traditional temple on May 28, 198 pursuant to Article 4 of the Korean Traditional Temples Preservation and Support Act.

C. G (Legal Name: H) was appointed as a chief inspector of the instant inspection on September 18, 200, but the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to dismiss the instant inspection on the ground that it was not recommended by G as well-known. The Defendant dismissed G on November 24, 2014, and on February 23, 2015, requested the Plaintiff to recommend a chief inspector of the instant inspection by March 2, 2015.

C. On February 26, 2015, Plaintiff A recommended Plaintiff A as the chief inspector of the instant inspection. However, on March 9, 2015, the Defendant rejected the instant inspection on the ground of Article 68 of the Defendant’s Constitutional Court Order 68, recommended the instant inspection within one week from the date of receipt of the notification, and sent a letter of proof that the appointment of chief inspector of the instant inspection would be the appointment of chief inspector via the Defendant’s executive meeting. On March 20, 2015, Plaintiff A sent a certificate of content that “The instant inspection was designated as an accident inspection, and the Plaintiff A recommended the chief inspector of the instant inspection as the chief inspector of the instant inspection could not be appointed as the chief inspector of the instant inspection because Plaintiff A did not receive the KRW 68.”

Accordingly, on March 23, 2015, Plaintiff A sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the instant temple was dissatisfyed from the Defendant, and then announced the satisfy.

E. On March 30, 2015, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to make a recommendation within 15 days of the creative stock owner pursuant to Article 62(1) of the Defendant’s Religious Order Act, but the Plaintiff failed to make a recommendation within the prescribed period without justifiable grounds, thereby appointing D as the chief inspector of the instant inspection on March 17, 2015.