1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, and the part which clearly is a clerical error or needs to clarify its meaning among the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defendant's judgment on the argument that is particularly emphasized by the court of first instance as the grounds for appeal is identical with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the attached Form, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, unless it is added as

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on “A evidence 1 to 7, 9, 11” in the part on “A evidence 1 to 7, 9 through 11” in the 7th of the judgment of first instance

B. Three and eight of the judgments of the first instance, “members” in the part “members” are “members.”

C. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “based on the trust held on July 3, 2018” in the fourth seven and eight parallels of the judgment of the court of first instance refers to “based on the Plaintiff’s trust held on July 3, 2018, which is the effective date of Article 36-2 of the Plaintiff’s Articles of Incorporation”

2. Judgment on the defendant's grounds for appeal

A. The gist of the assertion 1) Although the Plaintiff promised to establish a management and disposal plan to allow the Defendant to use the commercial building alone, since the Plaintiff unilaterally established a management and disposal plan without gathering the Defendant’s opinion, the Plaintiff’s resolution on such management and disposal plan is null and void, and the management and disposal plan also becomes null and void due to an obvious error in law. 2) The Plaintiff unilaterally sold a commercial building on the underground water tank without preparing an independent religious site and transfer plan, which is the premise for the Defendant’s consent to the instant project and the application for parcelling-out, and this violates the principle of trust and good faith and against the principle of trust and good faith, and the Defendant’s obligation to transfer the ownership of each of the instant real estate or to contribute in kind

3. Nevertheless, the first instance judgment against the Defendant is based on the trust regarding each of the instant real estate against the Plaintiff.