1. All claims filed by Plaintiffs A and B against the Defendants are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. (1) Plaintiff A, B, and Defendants were the engineers of the H church located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Plaintiff F was working as the person in charge of the accounting of the H church from May 1995 to May 201, 201. 2) HG association: (a) from May 201 to September 201, 201; and (b) from May 201 to June 201 to the third education hall extension work (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant construction work”); (c) Plaintiff A and B were the building members of each of the instant construction work; and (d) Defendant C and D were the audit committee of each of the instant construction work.

B. On September 2013, Defendant C submitted to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office a written accusation stating that, while conducting an accounting audit on Plaintiff F’s embezzlement from around September 201, 2013, the public funds of H church were deposited in Plaintiff F’s personal account or transferred from Plaintiff F’s account to Plaintiff F’s account, etc., and brought an issue as to the execution and accounting of the said construction funds. On February 4, 2014, along with Defendant D and E, Defendant C and the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted to the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office a written accusation stating that “the Plaintiff F has embezzled or embezzled construction funds of KRW 2,20,047,255 in total in relation to each of the instant construction works” (hereinafter “instant accusation”).

(2) Plaintiff F was investigated as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) but the prosecutor rendered a disposition of uncompeting evidence on July 31, 2014. The Defendants appealed to the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office, but the said Prosecutor’s Office rendered a final appeal on November 11, 2014. The Defendants re-appealed to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, but the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office rendered a ruling of re-appeal on July 30, 2015.

3) The Plaintiffs filed an accusation against Plaintiff F with the Defendants at the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office, who was subject to the disposition of unsatisfying evidence. As a result, the Defendants filed an accusation against the Defendants at the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office on November 9, 2016 as Seoul Central District Court Order 2016Kadan8038.