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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff Union is a partnership that obtained authorization from the head of the Gu for the housing reconstruction project of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and D is the president of the Plaintiff Union, the president of the partnership, the E, and the F of the Plaintiff Union, and the Defendant is the representative of the Plaintiff Union who owns the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu G

B. On June 19, 2012, Hyundai Industrial Development, a contractor of the instant reconstruction project, held a project explanation meeting with respect to the said reconstruction project. At the time, the executives, representatives, etc. of the Plaintiff’s association were gathered in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s association’s office in order to attend the said project explanation meeting, and the Defendant asserted that “In order to attend the said project, D, E, and F jointly conspired with the Defendant and inflicted an injury upon the Defendant on the street, which is located in the door of the Plaintiff’s association located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu’s I University, on June 17:30, 2012, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “the instant complaint case”), and the said prosecutor’s office rendered a disposition against the Defendant on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence submission on April 30, 2013.

C. Around August 2013, D, E, and F filed a complaint against the Defendant with the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office on the grounds of interference with, without, and defamation and intimidation with, the duties of the president of the Plaintiff’s association, etc., and the said Prosecutor’s Office issued a disposition to the effect that the Defendant was suspected of having been subject to lack of evidence on December 18, 2013.

On the other hand, on June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff Union held a board of directors and resolved on June 5, 2013 to execute the litigation cost to be disbursed by D, E, and F, an executive officer of the Plaintiff Union in relation to the instant accusation case as the partnership budget, and thereafter, paid 35 million won at the attorney’s expense.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion interferes with the work of the plaintiff's association and the plaintiff's association's complaint case is accompanied by D, E, and F, an executive officer of the plaintiff union.