All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

In the first instance court within the scope of the judgment of this court, the plaintiffs sought confirmation of invalidity of each of the resolutions of this case as principal lawsuit. Since each of the resolutions of this case is valid as a counterclaim, the J pastor sought confirmation that he is in the status of delegation of the defendant. The first instance court dismissed all of the claims of the plaintiffs and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

As to this, only the plaintiffs appealed against the part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiffs, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part on the plaintiffs' claims.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of the determination of re-emphasizing or adding the allegations by the plaintiffs in this court as follows, and such reasoning is as is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (excluding the part on a counterclaim that is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court), and as it is, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (excluding the part on a counterclaim that is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court). A) The portion of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “The first instance Council of August 23, 2015” of “the first instance judgment of August 16, 2015,” “B” of “I” of “I, 12 first 4 P, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha in each of the 17 and Ha, J.

B. In order to hold a collective meeting on August 23, 2015, the plaintiffs' assertion 1) the time, place, and agenda shall be advertised to the church in accordance with Article 90 (2) of the Constitution of the religious order before one week. On August 16, 2015, the entry in the master report of the religious order was no longer effective before the resolution of the church is made to hold the joint meeting, and there was no other one week advertisement. Therefore, on August 23, 2015, the Joint Council is defective in the convocation procedure.

B) According to Article 90(5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the Joint Council may only adopt a resolution on the matters presented by the Council. On August 16, 2015, the agenda “the succession of delegated pastors” or “the succession of delegated pastors” (the Plaintiffs, on November 1, 2015, shall be deemed delegated pastors and the meeting minutes of the Joint Council.