1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a partnership for the housing reconstruction project of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff association"), which has obtained authorization from the head of the competent Gu for the housing reconstruction project of Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the non-party D is the president of the Plaintiff association, the non-party E, and the director of the Plaintiff association. The defendant is the representative of the Plaintiff association who owns the

B. On June 19, 2012, Hyundai Industrial Development, a contractor, held a project explanation meeting with respect to the reconstruction of the Plaintiff’s association. At the time, the executives, representatives, etc. of the Plaintiff’s association were gathered in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s association’s office in order to attend the said project explanation meeting, and the Defendant asserted that “In order to attend the said project explanation meeting, the mother D, E, and F shared with the Defendant and inflicted assault and injury on the Defendant on the street near the door of the HI university located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, on June 17:30, 2012, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office on the said D, etc. on the ground that there was no suspicion of lack of evidence on April 30, 2013.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant case”). C.

D, E, and F also filed a complaint with the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office on August 2013 on the grounds of interference with the Plaintiff's business with, without, and defamation and intimidation against, the Plaintiff's union, and the said Prosecutor's Office issued a disposition that the Defendant was suspected of being informed of the lack of evidence on December 18, 2013.

On the other hand, on June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff Union held a board of directors to appoint a lawyer in relation to the instant complaint case by D, E, and F, an executive officer of the Plaintiff Union, and passed a resolution to execute the expenses incurred therein as the partnership’s budget. After doing so, the Plaintiff Union spent 35 million won at the Plaintiff’s expense.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion interferes with the work of the plaintiff's association and dismissed D, E, and F, an executive officer of the association, thereby objection the plaintiff's association.