1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From December 23, 1995, the Plaintiff has been in office as a member pastor of the E religious organization FIE (hereinafter “instant church”) which is a branch church belonging to the E religious organization GIE (hereinafter “instant church”).

B. Around September 10, 2013, the Defendants, who were the members of the instant church, filed a petition demanding the dismissal of the Plaintiff from the instant church member on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the Plaintiff’s resignation promise with the Council of Religious Organizations, but the petition was dismissed on November 18, 2013.

C. The Defendants: (a) before and after the above filing of a petition for dismissal, prevented the instant church from holding a worship, such as prohibiting the Plaintiff from having access to the instant church entering the worship in order to keep the worship by blocking the entrance doors of the instant church; or (b) obstructed the Plaintiff’s towing by leaving out of the church and noise, or by carrying out a separate instrument, and issuing a note in the name of the instant church.

Accordingly, the members of the instant church filed a complaint with the Defendants at the association of the instant church, and the instant church church filed a petition for an entrustment judgment with the E religious organization Gogle.

On July 27, 2014, after going through a trial procedure against the Defendants, the court below ordered the Defendants to dismiss or withdraw from office on the grounds of obstruction of worship and obstruction of business affairs, defamation against the Plaintiff, defamation, loss of dignity as a funeral and right holder, use of unconstitutionality, seizure of church books, etc. The Defendants appealed against the above judgment, but the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 21, 2014 by dismissing the appeal at the assembly of E religious organizations.

E. Even after the aforementioned judgment became final and conclusive, the Defendants continued to enter the instant church and interfere with the Plaintiff’s worship, and on September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff and the instant church filed an application against the Defendants for provisional disposition prohibiting church access and obstruction of worship as the Suwon District Court subsidies 2014Kahap96.

3.2