1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. In accordance with the second preliminary claim added by this Court, the Defendant.

1. The reasons for this part of the court’s determination on the prior defense, the main claim, and the preliminary claim are as follows: (a) the reasoning for this part is as follows: (b) the plaintiffs’ new arguments in this court are stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for addition of the following determination as to the plaintiffs’ new arguments under the 7th 14th 14th of the judgment of the first instance

【Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant is not entitled to possess the presence since the Plaintiff’s Order was expelled from the Defendant on November 1, 2017 in accordance with the bylaws and the enforcement rules of the Plaintiff’s Order issued again on November 1, 2017. However, the expulsion of November 1, 2017 alleged by the Plaintiffs is based on the same reason as the expulsion of January 5, 2016, which was determined to be illegal and invalid because there exists no reason for expulsion in the first instance trial. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs in this court alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant still has a legitimate reason for expulsion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

2. Determination on the second preliminary claim

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) since 2006, the defendant was in office as the presiding officer of the FJ, and three years have passed since the expiration of the term of office in accordance with the personnel regulations of the FJ. Accordingly, H and J ordered the defendant to leave the FJ force and to the PJ for the reason that the term of office has expired. This becomes effective immediately upon the order of the former president of the FJ, and the letter and notice of the issuance are merely a formal execution procedure of the order which already became effective. Therefore, even if the defendant was not expelled in the Plaintiff FJ, the defendant is obligated to deliver the presiding office to the plaintiffs in accordance with the measures of the issuance of the other FJ. 2) The defendant's assertion that the defendant's summary of the plaintiff's assertion was the first president of the FJ and the J were the defendant.