All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance different from the allegations in the evidence submitted in the court of first instance submitted by the plaintiffs to this court, each of the evidence Nos. 46 through 63 (including each number number), and the testimony by the witness AH of the court of first instance, it is acknowledged that the facts of first instance and the judgment are legitimate.

Accordingly, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, except for the cases of being used or added as the following “the part used or added by the second instance court.” As such, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.

2. The evidence No. 24, 32, 33, and 37 of the first instance judgment No. 6 of the 6th instance judgment “A” submitted the evidence No. 24, 32, 33, 37, and 57 of “B” to the entire purport of the oral argument “I and I are used in a large number,” “I will add I will in the front,” and “I will add I will in the second, 2, 37, and 57.”

“B” and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs in addition to the evidence of the relevant criminal case cannot be adopted as it is by examining the facts of the relevant criminal judgment.

There is no special circumstance that can be recognized.

The term "romatic work" shall be conducted.

In the first instance judgment, there is a question “3 conduct in the first instance judgment,” and the following is added:

“The plaintiffs (the plaintiffs) use only the minimum meaning delivery word in the Internet car page of the plaintiff company on August 19, 2008.”

Preparation of an article to prevent the expression “rovib funds” from appearing directly after the publication of the phrase “rovib funds”.

One of the arguments is that the overall context of the above notice is not interpreted as such, but rather, it seems natural to interpret the meaning of “the speaker who does not state the name of a particular company at a business security level,” as alleged by the Defendant.