1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. D, which had been the head of an existing church established as the head of an existing church, argued that he/she could receive a member of the church and participate only in the restoration of his/her reputation, and that he/she could receive a member of the church, and around 1960, he/she established an old E organization (hereinafter referred to as an “existing E organization”) along with the believers who concealed him/her, as seen below, since the name of the plaintiff is identical, but its substance is different as seen below.

And D was also established as an incorporated foundation for the management of the property of the existing school group.

B. On July 26, 1980 and July 31, 1980, following the resolution of the meeting of the representatives of the new school group on July 26, 1980 and the resolution of the committee on July 31, 1980, the existing school group changed the doctrine to the name of the existing school group, and changed the name of the existing school group to the defendant B. The defendant foundation changed the articles of association through the resolution of the board of directors to change the name, etc. of the defendant foundation following the change of the name of the existing school group on November 26, 1992. The cultural division, which is the competent authority, has permitted the amendment of the above articles of association (the legal nature seems to be authorized).

(2) On December 23, 1982, a person who objects to the above change of the doctrine and name of the existing school group established a preparatory committee under the same name as the existing school group and moved H as the chairperson on March 21, 1983. On September 11, 1983, a temporary committee was held to make a resolution that “routing and expulsion” is “routing and expulsion.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 16, 30, 31, 32 (including additional evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) A religious order that maintains the identity with the existing religious group is not the defendant B organization, but the plaintiff. 2) Accordingly, the defendant B organization committee is named on July 31, 1980.