1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the selective claim added by this Court is dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment is as follows: ① the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 31049, Sep. 25, 2020) in the second 16,17 of the written judgment of the court of first instance is deleted; ② the third 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 8th 8th 8th to 17th 17th 2th 8th 8th 8th 8th 8th 17th 17th 17th 17th 17th 17th 17th 3rd 8th 8th 8th 17th 17th 2th 2nd 2th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2000. Thus, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first 1st 3rd

2. Determination as to the Defendant’s main defense against the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of identity (the Defendant’s main defense against the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of identity) added by this court

A. In a lawsuit for confirmation, the subject of confirmation must, in principle, be the current specific rights or legal relations.

The Plaintiff’s mere seeking confirmation of the existence of identity between K (L, identification number, etc. at the general meeting of the representative at that time) and the Defendant at that time on February 2016 is difficult to view it as an object of the Plaintiff’s specific rights or legal relations, and merely seeking confirmation of facts.

(On the other hand, the dispute over the status of the established religious organization, which can submit C’s recommendation opinion to the Private School Dispute Mediation Committee under the Enforcement Decree of the Private School Act, which is the foundation of the lawsuit in this case, can be seen as related to the Plaintiff’s right or legal status. However, in this regard, the lawsuit seeking confirmation that the Plaintiff established C against the Defendant does not have a benefit of confirmation.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is brought.