1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall be within seven days from the day this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The facts below the basis of facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, together with the whole purport of the pleadings.

[1] The Plaintiff Educational Foundation A (hereinafter “Plaintiff Educational Foundation”) is a school foundation that establishes and operates a F University (i.e., “G University” to “F University” in January 2012; hereinafter “F University”) regardless of whether it was changed or changed.

Plaintiff

B is currently the president of the F University, and the plaintiff C is the secretary general of the plaintiff corporation.

The defendant is a corporation operating online newspaper E.

[2] On April 4, 2013, the reporter N posted the article, such as the description in attached Form 4, in the online newspaper E, as the title "F University" and the title "Parier of School" as the 30 faculty members requesting the reform.

The main contents of the above article are that the Plaintiff’s 30 teachers and staff members were unfairly subject to disciplinary action against Plaintiff C, a corporate secretary general of the Ministry of Education (which was the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology at the time, but was the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Education (hereinafter “Ministry of Education”), and that the process of appointment of Plaintiff B, a current president, is illegal.

Since then, on April 12, 2013, N of the Defendant posted the same article as written in attached Form 5, as the title, "F University B President of the Internet newspaper, who was prosecuted by the President of the F University, Doz." (attached Form 5).

The main contents of the above article are the purport that Plaintiff B should withdraw from the Republic of Korea on the ground that Plaintiff B should report the fact that the F University was prosecuted for the crime of joint residence intrusion, and that the articles of incorporation of Plaintiff B should not give the status of teacher to the faculty who was prosecuted under the articles of incorporation of Plaintiff B.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant article”) 2. The parties’ assertion on April 4, 2013 and April 12, 2013

A. The plaintiffs 1 reform △△ among the article of this case.