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 of this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the pertinent part as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff in the trial, and therefore, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) According to Articles 7 and 20 of the title of the instant Constitution, the case concerning pastors and the case concerning the act as a member of the union or a member of the general meeting of the union is affiliated with the adjudication division of the union. The Plaintiff was a member of the AC at the time of the adjudication of the authority against the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s adjudication of the authority against the Plaintiff constitutes violation of jurisdiction since it was dealt with in the country of the adjudication division of the union. 2) The Defendant church appointed AE to the chairperson in organizing a flag sub-committee for the referral of the Plaintiff’s authority to the adjudication division, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint against AD and AE for the suspicion of occupational embezzlement, and it was erroneous by appointing them as a member of the prosecution committee, although it constitutes an interested party on the adjudication of authority against the Plaintiff.

3) Although the Plaintiff sent twice a certificate of the purport that the request for appearance of the prosecution committee of the Defendant church would be withdrawn upon the completion of the investigation into S of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office’ Office, the prosecution committee considered the Plaintiff as a constructive confession without disregarding the Plaintiff’s request and prosecuted the Plaintiff, which constitutes a serious procedural defect. 4) Article 38(2) of the enforcement rules of the instant Constitution provides that “an application for challenge under Article 8(2) of the Constitution shall be made in the form referred to in subparagraph 1 of the right.” However, Article 38(3) of the enforcement rules of the instant Constitution provides that “In the case of paragraph (1), the motion for challenge under Article 8(2) of the Constitution may be made verbally at the seat of the trial committee and shall be substituted by a written application by recording the reasons therefor.”