Plaintiff

B The organization is a citizen movement organization established for the purpose of taking national self-refluence and the abolition of new neobism through the collective strike between workers, farmers, and the poor, and the F sports force. The organization is a citizen movement organization established on February 7, 2015. The plaintiff A is a person appointed as one of the full-time representatives of the plaintiff's B organization on February 7, 2015.

Defendant C is a composite cable broadcasting company that broadcasts the implication program “D news shock G” (hereinafter “D”) and Defendant D is also the executor of the instant program and the social person.

Defendant E is engaged in political deliberation activities, such as issuing weekly “O”.

H (hereinafter “the deceased”) around 17:35 on December 31, 2013, the “Y Resignation”, “A”, etc. were removed from the IMO, and was transferred to J Hospital as of the same day on the same day, and was transferred to J Hospital on January 1, 2014, but died around 07:55.

On January 2, 2014, the National Funeral Committee for Democratic Speculations and the Funeral Committee for the Funeral of the Deceased was organized, and the Plaintiff A was in charge of the co-chairperson of the Funeral Committee.

Defendant C, as the subject of the instant program, determined to deal with the deceased’s suicide case as the subject of the program, followed Defendant C, and broadcasted the broadcast in the form of interview with Defendant D, the program implementer of this case, by television around January 16, 2014. The summary of interview and interview between Defendant D and Defendant E, which was broadcasted at the time, is as shown in the attached Table.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Gap evidence Nos. 4 video, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendants asserted by the parties concerned in the instant program did not restrain the Plaintiffs from being informed of the deceased’s suicide in advance, but rather used the deceased’s death as a politically, thereby undermining the Plaintiffs’ social assessment.