1. The plaintiff A and C's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff B, D, and E are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a church belonging to G religious organization (hereinafter “instant religious order”) H (hereinafter “H”) and the Plaintiffs are the Defendant’s members, who are in the status of the senior, the right holder, or the house manager.

B. On July 27, 2013, the Defendant publicly announced the ice ice Cheong in the I Newspaper and the J. On August 19, 2013, K submitted the Defendant a ice ice Cheong (hereinafter “instant support”).

C. At a meeting held on December 18, 2013, the Defendant decided K as the Defendant’s final candidate for the Defendant’s fenced wood company. On December 22, 2013, at the meeting held on December 22, 2013, the Defendant passed a resolution to see K as a standing tree company with the consent of 524 members among the 57 vertical members. On December 29, 2013, at the meeting held on December 29, 2013, the Defendant decided to request K to see as a Defendant’s standing tree company and to file a petition with H (hereinafter “instant prior resolution”). At that time, K saw as a standing tree company.

At the meeting held on November 12, 2014, the Defendant passed a resolution on the agenda to see K as a delegating pastor, and on November 23, 2014, at the joint council held on November 23, 2014, the Defendant resolved to see K as a delegated pastor by the Defendant with the consent of 1,135 from among 1,340 members present at the meeting.

(hereinafter referred to as the "resolution of this case"). 【In the absence of any dispute over fact-finding, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, 11, 12, 14, 17, and 18 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)'s respective entries and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the prior resolution of this case was made based on the support document submitted by K who did not meet the qualification to become a pastor of the order of this case by stating false facts, and thus, the substantive procedural defect is so serious that it is null and void, and the resolution of this case is also null and void. The resolution of this case also has a significant impact on the legal status within the church of the plaintiffs, which is the defendant's new will, therefore, there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation

3. Determination on this safety defense

(a)a defense;