1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: (a) the “40,000 copies” in Part 8, 12, 8, and the “40,000 copies” in Part 8, 12, 8, and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for further determination, such as “2,” and therefore, they are cited in accordance

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s act at issue in this case’s summary is to distribute printed materials to only the Defendant’s members during a limited period from February 6, 2014 to February 14, 2014. The purport is to clarify the suspicion of irregularities by the head of the Defendant association, etc., who pointed out and urged other representatives to correct the act, and urge the correction thereof.

In other words, the above act of the plaintiff is for the benefit of the union members and thus, illegality is excluded, so it does not constitute a reason for expulsion under the articles of association.

B. The court below found that the Plaintiff distributed printed materials to not only the Defendant’s association members but also to many unspecified visitors visiting the association’s stores, in full view of the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in Eul evidence Nos. 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 (including a serial number), and that the Plaintiff distributed printed materials to the Defendant’s association members, as alleged by the Plaintiff, although the Plaintiff distributed printed materials only to the union members, the Defendant, a corporation established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and its investors, as long as the union members are separate legal entities, defamation or credit damage against the Defendant can be caused as a distribution of printed materials to the union members). The Plaintiff’s act of distributing printed materials is deemed to be sufficiently prejudicial to the Defendant’s credit, and even if the act as alleged by the Plaintiff includes part of the public interest intent of pursuing the interests of the union members, as seen earlier, even if it also includes the intent of promoting the above act