A. The relationship between the parties (1) C (hereinafter referred to as “C church”) is a religious organization created by D around 1964, whose father is D, who is the father of D, shall be able to believe D as his mother, be able to observe E, be on Saturdays, be on the day he knows, be on the day he knows, be on the day he knows, be on the day he complies with the discipline of the C church, and be on the F.

(2) On February 25, 1985, the C church continues to perform missionary activities with D’s death (hereinafter “D”), G as a general meeting leader, and E as a permanent leader.

(3) The Plaintiff is the head of the deceased and the deceased’s wife H.

(4) The defendant has been engaged in the activities of informing the believers or the general public of the problems such as family destruction and the unconstitutional money using the paper theory, which have been brought about regarding the religious activities of the above church, along with Internet carpets as members, J, K, etc. who are the same members, and the co-representative of MKaf, which is established on L on the Internet portal site.

B. From April 12, 2014 to November 22, 2014, the Defendant conducted a demonstration on a total of 26 occasions at the date and time as indicated in the list (attached Form 1) and at the place (attached Form 2), and used the diskettes or placards corresponding to each corresponding sequence listed in the list (attached Form 2).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant 1 to 8 diskettes” and the act of using it is referred to as “instant 1 to 8 acts”). 【No dispute over facts, Gap’s 1 to 14, 22, 23, Eul’s 1, 4, and 5’s entries or videos (including the number of each branch number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. (1) If a third party’s social evaluation of a deceased person as well as his/her bereaved family member’s reputation and reputation are harmed by infringing on his/her social evaluation or deceased person’s reputation, a third party is liable for such tort under the Civil Act with regard to the said tort.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 1901 delivered on January 19, 2001