1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C was registered as a temple affiliated with the Defendant around August 13, 1987 by the contribution act of the D organization, a creative owner, and the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) acquired the status of C’s creative owner from D organization on February 5, 2012.

Article 61. The chief inspector of a temple, the registration of which has been completed (including non-registered) with the property of this Order due to a contribution act, shall be appointed by the president of the General Affairs Office upon recommendation of the founder and his successor

Provided, That the chief executive officer and representative executive officers of F shall be appointed by the chief executive officer on the recommendation of owners.

B. In accordance with Article 61 of the Defendant’s religious donation, E recommended the Plaintiff as C history chief, and the Defendant appointed the Plaintiff as C history chief on January 12, 2015.

C. However, on March 2, 2016, E requested the Defendant to dismiss the Plaintiff’s well-known position on the ground that the Plaintiff was in a well-known position of C, and thus was subject to criminal punishment, and the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff from office of C on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant dismissal”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea applies only when the inspection property is registered as a final property by contribution act, and Article 61 does not apply to a Crat whose inspection property is registered in the name of inspection in the name of inspection.

(2) Even if Article 61 is applied, it is only granted the right to recommend the creative owner to be known to him, and since the right to dismiss the plaintiff is not specified, it is required to undergo the procedure of dismissal prescribed in Chapter 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act in order to dismiss the plaintiff, and the dismissal of the case without such procedure is null and void.

(3) Even if it is possible to request the dismissal of a creative owner, the creative owner of C company is not a D organization, or the plaintiff who acquired the status of a creative owner from E, and therefore, E cannot request the dismissal of the creative owner.

B. The defendant's assertion E is the initiative of Cr. Thus, the dismissal of this case is taken.