1. The plaintiff E's appeal and the defendants' appeal are all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs shall be borne by the appellant respectively.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as follows, and part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the Defendants’ assertion, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. On February 21, 2014, the Changwon District Court (2012dan1) rendered a judgment of conviction of a fine of KRW 3 million against the charge of defamation of the deceased by Defendant G on the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was written or added, as follows. (3) On February 21, 2014, the Defendant G appealed appealed against this judgment and appealed with KRW 2014No573 of the said court. However, on December 11, 2014, the Defendant G was convicted of a fine of KRW 7 million, and the Defendant G appealed appealed appealed against this judgment and appealed with Supreme Court Decision 2014Do18017, May 29, 2015, but the final judgment of the court of first instance was pronounced on the appeal of the Supreme Court on May 29, 2015.

The Defendants also made statements to the effect that Q died due to the board of directors L of the board of directors to the effect that the Defendants suffered mental damage caused by the Plaintiffs’ false fact-taking of war, and thereby, the Defendants were entitled to pay consolation money based on tort against the Plaintiffs. The Defendants asserted that this claim set off against the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendants. The offset against damages claim arising from intentional tort is not allowed (Article 496 of the Civil Act) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da3844, Feb. 25, 1994). The same applies to the case where the automatic claim is damage claim arising from intentional tort in the same case, such as the case where the automatic claim was inflicted on the fighting match that occurred at the same time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da38444, Feb. 25, 1994).