beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Plaintiff
A All claims against the Defendants are dismissed.
(b).
Reasons
1. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, 9 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply):
[1] Since the sectional owners of E department stores located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant department stores”) caused difficulties in operating the department stores due to embezzlement, etc. by the department store operators, they would form E department stores and directly manage the department stores.
In order to exchange information and gather opinions necessary for the operation of July 28, 2007, the management body of this case opened a camera (F; hereinafter “the instant car page”) following the Internet portal site (Daum). The management body of this case joined the sectional owners of the department department of this case and their relatives within the first degree of relationship as members.
[2] While performing the duties of the first audit of the instant management body, the second part-time co-chairperson, the third part-time co-chairperson, the fourth part-time adviser, the fourth part-time adviser, and the fifth part-time chairman, the Plaintiff resigned from the office of the representative chairman on June 11, 2012.
Plaintiff
B performed the duties of the third unit chairperson, fourth chairperson, and fifth auditor of the instant management body respectively.
Defendant C performed the duties of the fifth auditor of the instant management body.
Defendant D is the sectional owner of the department store of this case.
Defendant C posted, from March 19, 2012 to November 4, 2012, the text of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in the instant car page, respectively.
Defendant D posted on November 21, 2010 in the instant car page, and on May 8, 2012, written comments in the attached Table 5, respectively.
2. The plaintiffs' assertion
A. The Plaintiff C damaged the Plaintiff’s honor by pointing out false facts by posting each of the descriptions in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 on the instant car page, and Defendant D posted each of the descriptions in the separate sheet Nos. 4, 5 on the instant car page.
Defendant C and D.