1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants are dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the defendants' main defense

A. The parties’ assertion and the key issues of this case filed the instant lawsuit against Defendant G Religious Group (hereinafter “Defendant G Religious Group”) under the premise that they are in the position of Defendant H’s believers, which is an end group to which Defendant H belongs, on the premise that they were in the position of Defendant H’s believers, to confirm that the appointment of Defendant H was invalid, and that Defendant H was not in the position of well-knownness of Defendant H.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that there is no interest in seeking confirmation as above, since they were not the trust of Defendant H.

With respect to the appointment of the chief inspector of the Buddhist temple, a person who is not in the position of the Buddhist temple shall not be deemed to have legal interest in dispute as to the validity or existence of the position of the chief inspector of the Buddhist temple. Therefore, in this case, whether the plaintiffs are in the position of Defendant H, for which they can seek such confirmation, shall be examined.

B. Inspection is established by combining facilities, such as Buddhistness as a ideological element, the enforcement of the law as a procedural element, fear as a organizational element, and land as a physical element, and the Buddhist association, which is one of the elements of the inspection, cannot be divided unless the division is recognized, and even if some of the respecters or believers withdraw from the inspection or withdraw from the inspection association, it cannot be said that the inspection or new Do council is divided even if it is against the operation of the inspection (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da41249 delivered on December 9, 197). In addition, inspection was not followed by the religious constitution of the affiliated group, but the new Do and Do and Do and Do et al. were combined, and it cannot be said that it was divided (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da41249 delivered on December 9, 197).

Even if this is true, it is only that an individual withdraws from the end group to which he belongs, and therefore, the inspection itself.