beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs are the members of the Defendant D Religious Organization E (hereinafter “Defendant church”) and Defendant F is the members of the Defendant church.
B. Plaintiff A paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant; Plaintiff B paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant; and Plaintiff C paid KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant as a construction donation.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Determination
A. The plaintiffs' assertion that ① the construction contribution was paid to the defendant church by the defendant F's coercion, and ② the construction contribution was for the construction of a church, which constitutes a contract under which the conditions of rescission are to be the case where the construction of a church is not possible or the construction is not possible. Thus, the defendant church did not construct a new church up to now, and the construction is not possible in light of the status of the establishment of the defendant church, and the above conditions of rescission are not fulfilled. Thus, the defendants asserts that the construction contribution should be returned from the plaintiffs.
B. The judgment is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs made a construction contribution to the defendant church by the defendant F's coercion (in light of the contents of the above documentary evidence and testimony, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is any defect in the plaintiffs' expression of intent, intimidation to the extent of physical force, etc., even in light of the contents of the above documentary evidence and testimony), and there is no evidence to recognize otherwise. ② There is no evidence to regard the plaintiffs as a conditional donation for the cancellation of the plaintiffs' architectural contribution payment. In addition, even if it is considered as a conditional donation, considering the statement in subparagraph 1, and the overall purport of the arguments in this court's fact-finding as to the fact-finding results, it is recognized that the defendant church obtained a construction permit from Boh City for the construction of the church, as well as that the period of permission remains until April 30, 2015.