1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Fact-finding;

A. On May 20, 2006, the Plaintiff established the Defendant church belonging to the Defendant church, which belongs to the severity assembly of the Ministry of the Family Affairs of the Religious Organizations, with the second floor of the Dong-gu, Seocheon-gu E building as its domicile, and then was in office as the head of the Defendant church, and retired from the office of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu office around 2014.

B. D, on March 7, 2014, was dispatched to the pastors of the Defendant church from the Minor Labor Association of the Religious Organization (hereinafter referred to as the “F”). On April 11, 2014, when he/she was appointed as the member of the Defendant church, he/she issued a non-profit corporation identification certificate (F) with respect to the Defendant church, and on July 10, 2014, he/she reported the representative of the Defendant church to D and his/her domicile to Goyang-gu G.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, Eul 9 through 11 (including partial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is the full-time member of the defendant church, which is the non-corporate group, and the plaintiff seeks to confirm that D is not in the status of representative of the defendant church for the following reasons. The defendant also recognized the plaintiff's interest in confirmation on the ground that "the right to seek confirmation of non-existence of the status of representative of the defendant church has only the right to seek confirmation," in this case, which is related to this case, in the court of this case.

① At the time of Defendant church’s temporary recruitment as a pastor, D did not go through the procedure of permit for ice-finding by a Lee Jong-chul, which was an existing church of Defendant church, in violation of the provisions regarding ice-finding stipulated in the Constitution of the Federation of Religious Organizations, and did not undergo the procedure of permit for ice-finding by the Labor Association of the B Religious Organizations, which was the previous church of Defendant church, and did not go through the wedding and the ceremony of delegation to become the master of a branch church.

In addition, since the defendant church did not go through legitimate procedures, such as forging the minutes, articles of association, and so on without going through the resolution of the party church, the temporary holding of office of D is null and void.

2. D’s temporary holding of office is valid even if such holding of office is valid.

8.2