1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The plaintiffs and the defendant are the head of the E church located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

Escoping around 2011, the Escoping Association performed the construction of renovation and extension of the Escoping Scoping Scoping Scoping, from around 2011 to June 2013.

B. The Plaintiffs, as a member of the Edic Association, selected each of the above construction works as a contractor, and managed and supervised the construction site.

The defendant, as an audit committee member, has audited the above Yangyang Corporation as to the above Yangyang Corporation Corporation. From August 2, 2013 to November 2, 201 of the same year, the defendant was appointed as an independent accounting auditor again from the next day to November 21 of the same year, and made an additional audit on the above 3rd Education Corporation.

2. On December 1, 2013, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant had damaged the reputation of the Plaintiffs by openly stating false facts to the purport that “the Plaintiff embezzled the money of the E church in the process of the management and supervision of the said three education hall construction,” and sought compensation for damages therefrom from the Defendant.

On the other hand, while attending the general meeting of regular workers and speaking to the effect that “this case’s construction work was audited as a result of the audit, it was confirmed that the E church’s public fund deposited in an individual passbook, and that part of the construction cost was overpaid or twice paid,” the Defendant pointed out the problems revealed as a result of the audit, and during that process, it does not dispute the fact that the Defendant stated that there was a double payment by the Plaintiff A’s personal passbook.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize the contents of the statement made by the defendant at the above general meeting as false, and it is difficult to view that there is a statement of specific facts likely to undermine the social evaluation of the plaintiffs.

In addition, the defendant.