1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant C, D, and E are the members of the council of occupants' representatives composed of representatives of the F apartment in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-si (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and the defendant B is the person who served as the head of the management office of the apartment of this case.

B. On August 23, 2013, the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment complex discussed the agenda items to be selected by the apartment management company, and, at the time, the Defendant B, which was the managing director, proposed a veterinary contract conclusion, but the said agenda items were rejected against the Plaintiff et al., and decided to enter into a simple free contract with the existing company.

C. After that, on March 24, 2014, Defendant B submitted a written complaint to the civil petition office of the Yongsanbuk Police Station, and to the effect that Defendant B was punished for defamation by openly pointing out false facts to the effect that “The head of the management office received 10% of the construction cost from the construction business operator while he/she was responsible for the construction work of the apartment unit,” among the Plaintiff’s hearing by Defendant C, D, E, G, and H at the council of occupants’ representatives of the apartment unit of this case around August 20, 2013.”

On July 10, 2014, the prosecution of the above case stated that "the defendant was heard by E, D, G, C, and H at the representative meeting of the occupants of the apartment of this case on or around August 2013, 2013, the defendant stated that "the head of the management office in charge of individual heating works and received 10% of the construction cost from the construction business operator" as to the victim B, who is the managing director of the above apartment of this case. However, the victim did not have received the amount equivalent to 10% of the construction cost from the construction business operator as above. Accordingly, the defendant indicted the plaintiff as a crime of defamation and thereby damaged the reputation of the victim." The summary order was issued in the court by filing a prosecution against the plaintiff as a crime of defamation, and the plaintiff filed a formal trial, and the trial procedure was commenced upon the plaintiff's request for formal trial.