1. All of the instant claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. On December 2010, the Plaintiff was admitted to the FIE religious organization’s FIE (hereinafter “FIE”) as the head of the church.

B. On July 24, 2015, the E religious organization G trial branch rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on dismissal and withdrawal on the grounds of embezzlement of public funds.

The plaintiff raised an objection against this, and on August 2, 2016, the judgment of the general assembly of E religious organizations was reversed, and the judgment of the general assembly of E religious organizations G state was sentenced to one year of suspension from office against the plaintiff.

On April 10, 2017, the first trial of the E religious organization general assembly rendered a decision to commence a retrial (hereinafter “instant new trial”) against the Plaintiff.

C. Defendant B participated in the instant new judgment as an account by the director of the first new trial of the E religious organization, Defendant D’s clerk, and Defendant C’s accounting.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 3, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff's argument as a whole, the review procedure of the E- Religious Organization is for the benefit of the person against whom the final judgment was rendered, and the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration is applied. Thus, no judgment more unfavorable than

In addition, as a result of the prosecutor's investigation and the court's judgment, it was found that there was no suspicion that caused the plaintiff's prosecution to the church.

As such, the new judgment of this case, which was rendered more unfavorable than the previous final and conclusive judgment without any grounds for requisition, is unlawful.

The Defendants were involved in the judgment of this case which was unlawful by intention or gross negligence, which constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff, and the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for mental damages arising therefrom.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 31,00,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

Judgment

(a) The reason why the person having authority to take an action has taken the disciplinary action;