1. It is confirmed that G is not in the position of the chairman of the Defendant church, the member of the church, the chairman of the church and the joint council.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs are the heads of the defendant church, while G was appointed as the temporary pastors of the defendant church on May 12, 2008, and the temporary pastors of the defendant church and the chairman of the party council and the joint Council have been on the duty as the chairman of the defendant church.

B. The council of the defendant church is composed of the plaintiffs, who are temporary pastors and the head of G, which is the chairman of the church, and party members.

(c) Each branch church is affiliated with its top class, and the labor union to which the defendant church belongs was the Hao Association (the Hao Association President I).

On April 15, 2013, a resolution was passed to divide the union into two times at the 91th regular union of the union, which was held on April 15, 2013. On April 16, 2013, the pastors were divided into the union, and the organization of the union was determined on April 16, 2013, and reported the division of the union to the union-affiliated general meeting under the name of the Labor Union on April 17, 2013.

Since the establishment of a subdivision, Ho's association converting the regular labor union into the regular labor union at the 91th regular labor union, which was held on April 25, 2013, and after the division, G decided to dismiss G from its duties and to dismiss and withdraw from the Ho's association on the grounds that G consented to the separation of the temporary labor union after the expiration of its term of office as the temporary labor union.

E. Meanwhile, even though the defendant church was originally affiliated with the D Religious Organization General Assembly (M), the above religious order and D Religious Organization General Assembly (E), became a D Religious Organization General Assembly (E), and its constitutional amendment was passed at the special meeting on December 11, 2012.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 4, 8, 19, 20, Eul evidence No. 21 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. On February 7, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s assertion was dismissed from the Hao’s Court Decision, a superior member of the Defendant church to which the Defendant church belongs, and that the Plaintiffs voluntarily decided to withdraw from the Hao’s Council at the joint council of the Defendant church held on December 23, 2012, and they did not belong to their respective associations.

Therefore, it is true.