1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Plaintiff

The main point of the argument was that the plaintiff was a member of the defendant's religious organization as a female witness, but due to the defendant's deception, the plaintiff became a member of the family, and became a female and female witness meeting in Australia B.

The defendant demanded the punishment of the plaintiff during the family council Ehovah’s Witness B, and accordingly, in the family council Ehovah’s Witness B, the expulsion of the plaintiff was made on June 2012.

However, in order to conceal a serious criminal act committed by the defendant, the defendant expelled the plaintiff who did not have any error by covering the name of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's expulsion disposition against the plaintiff around June 2012 is null and void.

As to whether the instant lawsuit was lawful or not, the Plaintiff’s expulsion disposition against the Plaintiff on June 2012 from among the Ehyh’s witnesses, the summary of the Defendant’s defense was unlawful, since the instant lawsuit against the Defendant was filed against a non-qualified person.

Since the internal disciplinary action against religious organizations is not subject to judicial review, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

Judgment

In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective means to obtain a judgment against the defendant to eliminate the danger, in danger, and in danger, in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.

In addition, the defendant in a lawsuit seeking confirmation may cause uneasy in the legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and again, he/she shall be a person who has asserted conflicting interests with the legal interests of the plaintiff and, if so, has the benefit of confirmation against such defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14420, Dec. 10, 191). In light of the above legal principles, even if following the plaintiff's argument, the defendant is not the defendant, and even according to the plaintiff's argument, the family witness B association of Ehhovah and the defendant, who is not the defendant