1. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) Defendant B opened the Defendant C church (hereinafter “Defendant C church”) to take overall charge of the affairs of the Defendant church; (b) donated the real estate of the Defendant church registered in the name of the Defendant B to the children; (c) arbitrarily consumed the activities of the Plaintiff church in the custody; (d) thereby causing damage equivalent to 11 billion won to the Defendant church; and (e) around January 2013, he neglected the decision-making process of the Defendant church; and (c) neglected the procedures of the Defendant church by unlawfully removing the pastors, who share with the Plaintiff and the members of the Defendant church, from office.

Since the plaintiff and the designated parties who are the members of the defendant church suffered mental impulses due to the above tort committed by the defendant B, the defendant B shall compensate the plaintiff and the selected parties for the damages incurred by the plaintiff and the selected parties, and since the defendant B actually performs the affairs on behalf of the defendant church, the defendant church is liable to compensate the plaintiff and the designated parties for the damages incurred by the defendant B in relation to its affairs.

2. Determination

A. On the premise that the plaintiff and the designated parties are the members of the defendant church, the plaintiff alleged that the above defendant B's occupational breach of trust and embezzlement, voluntary return to the supervisory pastor, and illegal removal of the pastors against the plaintiff and the designated parties constitutes a tort against the plaintiff and the designated parties. However, the statement of Gap evidence No. 47 is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff and the designated parties are the members of the defendant church, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Even if the Plaintiff and the designated parties are the members of the Defendant church, it is difficult to view that Defendant B’s act asserted by the Plaintiff for the following reasons constitutes tort against the Plaintiff and the designated parties.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is without merit.

1.1 billion won in the defendant church due to the occupational breach of trust and embezzlement of defendant B's defendant church.