All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The purport of the grounds for appeal is that if a housing redevelopment project is failed, a considerable amount of money invested can be deemed as damages. Thus, the phrase of the instant banner cannot be deemed to be false, and the Defendants merely installed a banner stating warning phrases on behalf of local residents and did not intend to interfere with the work of the victims.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the instant banner installed by the defendants, stating that the development funds can be "total" when the regional housing association project was failed. However, according to the agreement on subscription to the regional housing association of this case and the fund management agency agreement, etc., if the local housing redevelopment project is suspended, the association agent expenses out of the investment funds paid by the union members are not refunded, but the association agent expenses out of the investment funds paid by the union members are managed by the trust company. Since the contribution excluding the association agent expenses out of the money paid by the union members is managed by the trust company, the remaining investment funds excluding the portion not returned even if the project is suspended, are distributed to the union members, and the Defendants are not entitled to receive the full amount of the investment, and the Defendants opposed to the establishment of the regional housing association of this case.