1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a member of the Diplomatic Association in Ansan-si, the plaintiff was a member of the Diplomatic Association (the title before the change: the E intersection; hereinafter referred to as the "instant church"), who was in the position of the competent authority, and the defendant is a member of the Diplomatic Association and is a member of the Diplomatic Association, which belongs to the general assembly of the Diplomatic Association.

B. On February 21, 2016, the Plaintiff interfered with the removal of the instant church and distributed false facts to the members of F, G, H, and I, who are the members of the instant church, around February 21, 2016, and filed a complaint against the Plaintiff at the council of the instant church. The Defendant’s written indictment against the Plaintiff on April 2, 2016. (2) On April 27, 2016, the Defendant’s written indictment against the Plaintiff. On June 27, 2016, the Defendant’s trial court recognized the above details of the complaint, and rendered a judgment that the Defendant ordered the expulsion and the withdrawal of the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 3(1), Article 6(7), and Article 10 of the Constitution (hereinafter “instant decision”).

C. On July 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a written appeal against the judgment at the meeting of the Korean Film Council, which was dismissed on July 25, 2016. On October 6, 2016, the judgment of the general meeting of the Korean Film Council was dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff’s appeal was unreasonable.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. As to the procedural defect, the decision of the Defendant in this case is invalid because there are procedural defects as follows.

In other words, the plaintiff, as the right holder of the church of this case, should have been subject to a disciplinary judgment at the church of this case, but at the time, K was not prosecuted by J and K as the temporary chairperson of the church of this case, and the L and M of the defendant who is a member of the church of this case was appointed as the prosecution commissioner, and ② the defendant who is not the party members of the church of this case, who is a member of the church of this case, is not the party members of the church of this case.