1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by E [G].

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was received at the time of the sale of the Plaintiff church’s properties, the sum of KRW 310,000,000,000, out of the proceeds from the sale of the Plaintiff’s church properties, and then, on June 13, 2008, the Defendants embezzled KRW 110,000,000 for personal consumption for the eight (8) intermediate payments of KRW 50,000,000 for the eight (60,000 for the last nine (9) intermediate payments of August 4, 2008.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to refund to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the instant money and damages for delay.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion ① the Plaintiff church was abolished as of April 26, 2016, and the church building was sold to another church, and there is no present.

Therefore, the plaintiff church does not have the ability to file the lawsuit of this case.

② Since, on April 26, 2016, E, who was an officer or employee of the Plaintiff church, retired from office as an officer or employee of the Plaintiff church, it is not entitled to represent the Plaintiff church.

B. Determination 1) According to the results of the fact-finding on the plaintiff church's party capacity stated in the evidence No. 1 and the fact-finding on the president of the Seoul Western Labor Association, the plaintiff church's building was sold by a compulsory auction on March 13, 2014, and the plaintiff church's building allowed the closure of the plaintiff church on April 26, 2016. However, even if it is difficult for the plaintiff church to maintain its organization due to sale of assets in the auction procedure, it cannot be said that the plaintiff church was extinguished and the plaintiff church lost its party capacity in the lawsuit, and the plaintiff church's ability was extinguished only after "the completion of the liquidation work" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da23087, Oct. 9, 192); since the lawsuit in this case is within the scope of liquidation purpose of the plaintiff church's property relation, the plaintiff church's right of representation is not sufficient for the plaintiff church's non-party representative.