1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff A church against defendant F, G, H, and I, equivalent to the amount ordered to be paid below.

1. Under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the relevant part of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance (including 3 pages 11 to 4 pages 13, 1 to 3) shall be cited as to this part of the basic facts.

2. The plaintiffs asserted that Defendant G et al. violated the plaintiffs' personality rights (99 times of the plaintiff church, 2176 times of the plaintiff, 325 times of the plaintiff), respectively, by repeatedly posting the phrases of insult and saf and saf, on the 1, 2, Internet car page using the ID of this case. By posting the photograph and the file of this case, the plaintiffs' portrait rights (142 times of the plaintiff church), voice rights (1 time of the plaintiff church), and (b) posted the photo, thereby infringing the plaintiff church's copyright (92 times of the plaintiff church) respectively.

Defendant D is an operator of the 1 Internet PC and a representative of the AD of this case, and Defendant E shared the AD with Defendant G, etc. as an individual member of the AD of this case, and aided and abetted the aforementioned tort along with them, or by being aware of at least the tort committed by Defendant G, etc.

In addition, Defendant D has the authority to manage and dispose of the notices, etc. using the ID of this case and the responsibility to manage them, and Defendant E has the duty of care to prevent other members from preparing illegal notices as an individual member of the ID of this case. Defendant D and E breached such duty of care, thereby facilitating the illegal acts of Defendant G, etc., and thus, Defendant A and E are liable for aiding and abetting unlawful acts of Defendant G, etc.

Therefore, the Defendants should pay consolation money, etc. as stated in the purport of the claim, which is calculated on the basis of one million won per time as damages for joint tort to the Plaintiffs.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant D and E

A. According to the above evidence and the statements in Gap32, 40, 41, 42, 44, and 45, the defendant D is a manager (operator) of the Internet P. 1 Internet P.C. and an organization ID of the 2 Internet P.C.