1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2006, Plaintiff B is a person who was in office as an officer of Plaintiff A’s church (hereinafter “Plaintiff church”), and the Defendant is a general assembly exercising overall control over the Diplomatic Association to which the Plaintiff church belongs.

B. From around 2010, E, who had been the members of the Plaintiff church, was the main axis, and raised suspicion of fraudulent acts, such as embezzlement of Plaintiff B, who is the member of the Plaintiff church, and some of the members participated in the same and the conflict inside the Plaintiff church began.

Since then, E, etc. interfered with E's collection of office, convened a temporary administrative affairs council, and resolved to dismiss Plaintiff B from the temporary officer of the plaintiff church, and around 2014, he tried to invite the F, which was the first officer of the plaintiff church, as the member of the plaintiff church, again as the member of the plaintiff church, around 2014.

C. In the process of the lawsuit, E filed with the Daejeon District Court an application for a provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties with respect to the plaintiff B or the plaintiffs, and filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the plaintiff B was dismissed from the office of post of post of post of post of post of post of the plaintiff in accordance with the above dismissal resolution, but all of the lawsuit was dismissed or dismissed, and E filed a lawsuit claiming return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff B as the special representative of the plaintiff church, but the judgment of dismissal was pronounced, and the plaintiff B filed a complaint with the embezzlement of the plaintiff, but the disposition was without suspicion (Evidence of Evidence).

E also requested the defendant to intervene by demanding the disciplinary action against the plaintiff B. Accordingly, at the 104th regular meeting of the defendant in 2014, there were discussions on the dispute status of the plaintiff church and the defendant's qualification as the representative of the plaintiff B. However, the defendant published the book "written opinion of the 104th regular meeting," which includes the above discussion, and distributed it to the affiliated church.

E. Accordingly, the plaintiffs suffered damages, since the defendant damaged the reputation of the plaintiffs through the above publishing and distributing acts and committed an illegal act that unfairly intervenes in the dispute of the plaintiff church.