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 reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that the "written confirmation of this case" under Section 17 of the judgment of the first instance court No. 3 is dismissed as "the agreement of this case", and the "rashness" under Section 20 of the same Article is dismissed as "a complaint", and the following judgment is added to the plaintiff's argument raised in the trial of the first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The Plaintiff asserts that even though the Plaintiff, E, and Defendant’s general assembly agreed in the instant agreement that “the Defendant shall request the full bench to revoke the expulsion of the E pastor so that he/she may clarify the revocation of the expulsion,” the Defendant did not implement the said agreement on the cancellation of the expulsion of the E pastor, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable to pay consolation money for the Plaintiff’s mental damage.

However, as seen earlier in the facts of recognition, the defendant general assembly rendered a judgment on March 22, 2013 against the E pastor who has a favorable relationship with the plaintiff on March 22, 2013. Thus, the agreement of this case is written in the agreement of this case. Thus, even if the plaintiff has a favorable relationship with E, it is not possible to claim consolation money due to the plaintiff's mental suffering in relation to the cancellation of the judgment of expulsion against E which is not the plaintiff himself/herself.

Furthermore, the above agreement provides that the defendant shall revoke the judgment of expulsion at the request of the court, and according to the Constitution of the defendant's general assembly, the judgment of expulsion is one of the judgment of expulsion (Article 8 of Chapter 1). According to the Constitution of the defendant's general assembly (Article 6 of Chapter 1), the judgment of expulsion is in charge of the court of adjudication, such as the Constitutional Council, the court of adjudication, and the general assembly (Article 6 of Chapter 6). Since the judgment of a general assembly is an independent court which consists of seven pastors appointed by the defendant's general assembly and eight 15 persons in total (Article 76 of Chapter 5). The revocation of the judgment of expulsion is a matter of independent determination in the