1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, an incorporated association, was established in around 1980 as a member church belonging to the Korean Independent Association and the Korean Federation of Assistant Institutes, and the Plaintiff had registered as the Defendant’s sexual intercourse in around 191 and had been engaged in religious life.

B. On May 11, 2014, the Defendant held a party meeting in the presence of 22 persons, who were the head of Si/Gun/Gu, and passed a resolution on the disposition of expulsion against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 5(2)6 of the Ordinance on Disciplinary Measures on the ground that the Plaintiff committed an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 4(3) of the Ordinance on the Disciplinary Measures (hereinafter “the instant resolution on expulsion”).

- The fact that documents that entirely deny the traditional doctrine of the classical reading have been sent to the inside and outside of the jurisdiction of the Defendant and posted on the Internet from time to time on the Internet have been distorted in bad faith and distortedly, thereby impairing the party’s honor by openly slandering the Defendant and the Defendant’s facilities from time to time, thereby hindering various meetings, duties, worship, etc. as a result of disturbance.

C. According to Articles 3 and 4(1) of the Defendant’s Disciplinary Ordinance, the term “an offense prescribed by the Ordinance on the Disciplinary Powers” means “an offense against the religious belief and conduct of the believers, or an offense against the rules of the believers enacted on the basis of a sexual intercourse, and an offense against another person is committed.” The judgment on such an offense is a single trial system, and a party council takes charge of the same.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 7, 17, and 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s historical truth about the fall of the European War, which was disseminated by the Plaintiff, contradicts the traditional doctrine of the German Germany, and distorted the history of the German Peninsula and illegally executed a large amount of church contribution money. However, the Plaintiff pointed out the above contents and did not give the Plaintiff any opportunity to vindicate, and thus, it is null and void.

(b).