1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court has used for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the pertinent parts as follows. As such, it refers to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the first instance court's 5th judgment "shall not be returned" is "shall not be returned to the original court (the extinguished company shall be deemed to be the company prior to the merger when the judgment invalidating the merger becomes final and conclusive under the Commercial Act)."

(b) 6th and 15th decisions of the first instance court are as follows:

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7, 9 through 14, and 17, the following facts are acknowledged: ① the entry of the plaintiff and E church is the same and similar to the articles of association; ② the fact that the plaintiff was returned to the plaintiff; ③ the plaintiff was using the land building of the Incheon-gun Incheon-gun, which was originally used by Egynasium by Egynasium; ④ the registered titleholder of the building and the building on the ground was changed from the "Egynasium" to the "Egynasium" on June 21, 2016; ⑤ the fact that the plaintiff paid public charges, such as electricity, etc. imposed on the above land and building.

However, even though it was confirmed that D did not have the status of the defendant under the judgment confirming the existence of the status in this case, D refused to leave the defendant church building, in light of the circumstances such as the circumstance that D established the plaintiff only after March 2015 and the situation that D had the status of the teacher in the office and the location of the plaintiff and the E church are different, and its members are not consistent, the facts recognized earlier or the entries of Gap evidence No. 8 are the same only with the plaintiff established around March 2015 and the legally dissolved Egrative association.

Nor can it be deemed that the Plaintiff succeeds to the rights under the instant merger agreement as it is.

A person shall be appointed.

(c)as follows in the sixth and seventeenth sentence of the first instance court: