1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's first preliminary claim against the defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. In around 1995, the Plaintiff was established with the contribution of the Edics Association Edics Association (former title Fdics Association; hereinafter “Edics Association”).

Defendant B, around 201, became the representative director of the Plaintiff while he was appointed as the Edicator of the Edicator.

B. The Plaintiff’s fundamental property was Sungnam-si G land and ground buildings in Sungnam-si. However, after the establishment of the Plaintiff’s foundation, the Association, the founder of the said building, used the underground floor of the said building as a preliminary distribution.

On June 25, 2012, the Sungnam City notified the Plaintiff of a plan to remove church-related facilities on the ground that the use of the building, which is a welfare facility for the disabled, as a religious facility, was illegal, and if the building is not implemented, the plan to impose a non-performance penalty, etc. was made until December 31, 2012.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Edic Association needed to build buildings to be moved by Edicatories.

On the other hand, the Hadern Supervisory Board of Korea (hereinafter “H”) was suffering from considerable difficulty due to debts after I died.

However, on December 16, 2012 between Defendant B and Defendant D, who was the female of I, had been employed as the head of the Plaintiff’s secretariat, and the J, who was the husband of Defendant B and Defendant D, and the head of the H church, represented by the H church, entered into a merger contract (No. 42, B’s evidence, and No. 1-3).

The main contents of the merger contract were that the name of the church is called the E intersection, the worship is the H intersection, and the E intersection is the full acceptance and repayment after ascertaining the liabilities of the H church, but the repayment can be made in order in consultation with the H intersection.

On the other hand, there has been discussions about whether to grant compensation to the plaintiff in relation to the moving from the existing building. The plaintiff holds a board of directors on December 19, 2012 and accepts the following proposals, the plaintiff foundation shall move to the church.