1. The plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant church is an affiliate E, an incorporated foundation, and the Plaintiffs are the believers of Defendant church.

B. At the time of July 2012, the Defendant church, who was in charge of F pastors, was unable to pay a considerable amount of KRW 300 million to financial institutions. However, the Defendant church decided to provide a special contribution to resolve this.

As a result, the sum of KRW 80 million paid by Plaintiff A, KRW 5 million paid by Plaintiff B, and KRW 1 million paid by Plaintiff C (hereinafter “each of the instant contributions”) was actually collected at KRW 97 million, including the sum of KRW 1 million paid by Plaintiff C.

C. A member of the Defendant church was changed from F pastors to G pastors around July 2013. D.

On August 19, 2014, the defendant church sold the existing church site (Y, etc. in Busan, Seo-gu) and the building on the ground to KRW 3.744 billion, and received the full payment amount by June 29, 2015, and now transferred to I of Gangseo-gu in Busan.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 5 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant church's primary argument is that it collects money on the premise that it will pay all the debts of financial institutions and will not sell the existing church site and building, so each of the contributions of this case is the so-called donation with the burden, and the defendant church did not perform its burden, so the above donation was cancelled. or each of the contributions of this case is the donation under the condition that the defendant church sells the existing church site and building. The conditions are fulfilled. or each of the contributions of this case is extinguished due to a cause for which both the plaintiffs and the defendant church are not responsible, and thus the defendant church made unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the defendant church should return each of the contributions of this case to the plaintiffs.