A. As to the defamation caused by false representation, the content of the instant contract related to the construction cost has been changed several times, and it is concluded that the J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) set up and pays the unpaid construction cost at KRW 464 million to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) in accordance with the final settlement agreement on August 6, 2014, thereby excluding F from the person who is not obligated to pay the construction cost, and the F and J’s representative director M&D stated that F is not obligated to pay the construction cost to D in accordance with the final decision, and F are not obligated to pay the construction cost directly to D, and the domestic F Co., Ltd. is obligated to pay the construction cost directly to D.

Even if there is a dispute between the contractor and D in relation to the repair of defects, and the contractor's side has to pay the corresponding construction cost until the completion of the repair of defects, and the F did not pay the construction cost unfairly.

Even though there is a difficulty in evaluating, the Defendants posted the instant diskettes expressed as a malicious owner who did not pay the construction cost illegally even though the Defendants are obligated to pay the construction cost directly by F.

Therefore, the above notice constitutes defamation by publicly alleging false facts.

B. In relation to the obstruction of business, the employee of the sales agency stated that the Defendants’ act would have an adverse impact on the sales of buildings as if there is a dispute in relation to the legal relationship of the buildings by demonstration on the Petet or loading equipment, etc. to 101, and that the Defendants’ act would have caused interference with business by competing with the Defendants’ act.

Although M and N request several times from August 2014 to September 15, 2014, the Defendants were forced to leave 101 on September 15, 2014.