1. Among the plaintiffs' lawsuits, the part on invalidity of each resolution of the political party listed in attached Forms 1 and 2, and the actions of plaintiffs B, C, E, F, G, and J.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a church belonging to the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Association of Religious Organizations located in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government U.

B. The plaintiffs, as the members of the defendant, were dispatched to the defendant and were in office as the head of the defendant, and the plaintiffs H, B, C, D, E, F, and G were in office as the representative, plaintiffs I, J, and K were in office.

The members of the association and the members of the association are the officers of the church.

C. On November 3, 2013, the Defendant held a regular meeting (hereinafter “instant party meeting”), and ① with respect to the election of church officers, the Defendant’s planning committee limited to the remaining executives except Plaintiff H, B, C, D, D, E, F, G, and Plaintiff I, J, and K, from among the existing executives of the Defendant’s planning committee, who are the right holders, and the rest of the executives except Plaintiff I, J, and K, which are the right holders, was resolved on with 72 marks and 14 marks, and ② the agenda reserved for the dispatch to Plaintiff A was resolved with 73 marks and 7 marks, and 73 marks, respectively, among Plaintiff H, I, L, A, M, N, P, P, Q, Q, R, K, among the visitors.

(hereinafter referred to as "each resolution of this case" is called, and each resolution of this case has a number when specifying it). 【No dispute exists in the grounds for recognition, Eul's statement in No. 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim for confirmation of invalidity of a resolution in attached Form 1(1)

A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The decision of this case was made in violation of the church law of the S Religious Organization to which the defendant belongs, without undergoing any discussion at the planning committee, by the decision of the planning committee to determine the executive officers to be arbitrarily excluded, and is null and void since there is a defect in the open voting method by a large number of persons, not by the secret voting method. 2) The defendant's resolution of this case ① is not a resolution to exclude the relevant plaintiffs from the recommendation of executive officers, and this part of the lawsuit by the plaintiffs is unlawful because there is no object of confirmation.

B. Determination A.