1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. On the premise, Plaintiff A and B are the members of the F church belonging to the D Religious Organization Em Union, Plaintiff C is the head of the above church, and the defendant is the member of the above church, the defendant is the member of the above association, and the above member of the trial of the union on August 3, 2013, the above member of the trial of the union "Plaintiff B has deserted his duties in concert with the above member of the association, and the plaintiff A and C have committed an act of interference with the joint council, the illegal group operation, the labor union, the anti-general assembly, and the acts of this act, which were committed on the part of three occasions, but failed to comply with summons." The plaintiff Eul was sentenced to an indefinite suspension, the plaintiff A and C's dismissal, the expulsion, and the removal from the church (hereinafter "the decision of the union of this case"). The fact that the plaintiff appealed the decision of the union of this case and the fact that the court of the general assembly of this case, such as the defendant's intent, did not dispute between the parties

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. In the course of the trial for the instant general assembly judgment, the Defendant’s trial court did not examine the relevant litigation data, such as “Appeal case between the Plaintiff and G,” against the decision rendered by the Seoul Central District Court in the case No. 2013s. 74864, Feb. 5, 2014.

Therefore, the part against Plaintiff A in the general assembly judgment of this case is null and void.

B. ① The Defendant did not go through the procedure stipulated in Article 141 of the Defendant’s Constitution regarding the instant judgment at the general assembly. ② The provisions of the Defendant’s Constitution and the Disciplinary Ordinance, which the instant general assembly judgment was based on the applicable provisions of the Act, are not applicable to Plaintiff B and C, and ③ the above Disciplinary Ordinance Article 42, Articles 5, 35, and Article 54 of Chapter 6 of the above Disciplinary Ordinance, Article 35 of the above Disciplinary Ordinance, Article 54 of the above Disciplinary Ordinance, can be imposed only where it is most extreme. As such, the part against Plaintiff B and C in the instant general assembly judgment is null and void.

3. The fundamental defense is guaranteed by the State’s freedom of religion and the principle of separation of religion and religion under the Constitution.

Therefore, it is a state agency.