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

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) Defendant B opened the Defendant C church (hereinafter “Defendant C church”) to take overall charge of the affairs of the Defendant church; (b) donated the real estate of the Defendant church registered in the name of the Defendant B to the children; (c) arbitrarily consumed the activities of the Plaintiff church in the custody; and (d) caused damages equivalent to 11 billion won to the Defendant church; and (b) around January 2013, he neglected the decision-making process of the Defendant church by forcing the children to voluntarily return to the work of supervising the Defendant church without any procedure; and (c) illegally removing the pastors who share the purport with the Plaintiff and the members of the Defendant church, including the Plaintiff.

Since the plaintiff and the designated parties who are the members of the defendant church suffered a big mental impulse due to the above illegal acts committed by the defendant B, the defendant B shall compensate the plaintiff and the designated parties for the damages incurred by the plaintiff and the selected parties, and since the defendant B is a person who executes the affairs on behalf of the defendant church explicitly or in substance, the defendant church is liable to compensate the plaintiff and the designated parties for the damages incurred by the defendant B in connection with

2. First of all, the plaintiff and the designated parties’ claims are premised on the premise that they are the members of the defendant church. However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff and the selected parties are the members of the defendant church only with the statement of No. 35, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if the plaintiff and the designated parties are the members of the defendant church, it is difficult to view that the acts of the defendant B asserted by the plaintiff for the following reasons constitute tort against the plaintiff and the designated parties.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B.

① Even if Defendant B’s occupational breach of trust and embezzlement against Defendant B incurred property damage of KRW 11 billion to Defendant church, such act is against Defendant church.