손해배상(기)
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 1,000,000 to each of the Plaintiffs, and as to this, from January 3, 2018 to September 21, 2018.
Basic Facts
The pertinent Plaintiff A church of the parties (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff church”) is a church belonging to G religious organizations (hereinafter referred to as “instant religious order”).
Plaintiff
B is a representative of the plaintiff church from November 2004 to now.
Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is a company that issues H’s newspaper.
Defendant D is the reporter of the Secretary General of the Editorial Office of the Defendant Company.
Plaintiff
From the inside of the church in 2016 to 2017, at the I local council of the instant religious order (hereinafter referred to as the “I local council”) where the Plaintiff church had been currently affiliated with the Plaintiff church centering around the Plaintiff B, there was a dispute over the division of the above local council and the change of the Plaintiff church by dividing it into those who want to have the Plaintiff church belong to the J local council (hereinafter referred to as the “J local council”) and those who want to have the Plaintiff church belong to the J local council, as well as those who oppose the change of the Plaintiff church centering around the Plaintiff K.
The Defendant Company published, at H, the [Attachment 3 Articles (hereinafter “Class 1 Articles”) of the [Attachment 4] of the [Attachment 4] of Defendant D, [L] [Attachment 6] of August 16, 2017, and on September 6, 2017 [M] Articles 4 (hereinafter “Attachment 2 Articles”) of the [E] [Attachment 5] in the name of a reader on October 18, 2017, Articles 5 (hereinafter “E”) of the [Attachment 3 Articles] in the name of a reader, and on November 30, 2017 [N] Articles 6 (hereinafter “No. 4 Articles”) of the [Attachment 6] of the [Attachment 7] [O] [Attachment 7 (hereinafter “No. 5].
[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 33, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff as to the plaintiff's assertion was stated in the first article as if the plaintiffs were refused to submit legitimate documents, even if they were requested by the court.
(A) However, the Plaintiffs rejected the request from P, Q and their agents for inspection of private documents.
The defendants are in the article 2 and 3, the plaintiff B, the ownership of the plaintiff church, S. of the branch of Sungnam-si.