2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

A. The plaintiff and the defendant C, D, and E are the members of the council of occupants' representatives composed of representatives of the F apartment in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-si (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and the defendant B is the person who served as the head of the management office of the apartment of this case.

B. On August 23, 2013, the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment complex discussed the agenda items to be selected by the apartment management company, and the proposal to conclude a contract with the Defendant B, which was at the time of the management office, was presented, but the said agenda items were rejected against the Plaintiff et al., and resolved to conclude a simple free contract with the existing company.

C. After that, on March 24, 2014, Defendant B submitted a complaint to the civil petition office of the Yongsanbuk Police Station, and to the effect that, on August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff was heard by Defendant C, D, E, G, and H at the council of occupants’ representatives of the apartment of this case, Defendant B (“Defendant B”) with the phrase “as he was responsible for the construction of individual apartment heating works, he received 10% of the construction cost from the construction business operator and received 10% of the construction cost” against Defendant B. The complaint was filed to the effect that Defendant B’s reputation was damaged by openly pointing out false facts.

On July 10, 2014, the prosecution of the above case stated that "the defendant was heard by C, D, G, E, H, etc. at the representative meeting of the occupants of the apartment of this case on or around August 2013, 2013, with respect to the victim B, who is the manager of the management office of the apartment of this case, "the head of the management office takes charge of individual heating works, and received 10% of the construction cost from the construction business operator," but the victim was not paid the amount equivalent to 10% of the construction cost from the construction business operator as above. Accordingly, the defendant was indicted against the plaintiff as a crime of defamation (hereinafter "the criminal case of this case"), and the court ordered a summary order."