1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the gist of the plaintiffs' assertion did not obstruct the defendant's business of selling fishery products by spreading or by force, the defendant filed a complaint against the plaintiffs under suspicion of interference with business with the purpose of having the plaintiffs criminal punishment. Accordingly, the plaintiffs suffered mental suffering, such as being investigated by the investigative agency without any error, so the defendant is obligated to pay one million won each of the plaintiffs as compensation for damages caused by tort.

B. Even if the complainant was subject to an investigation due to the suspected fact that the complainant filed a complaint and was subject to an investigation, insofar as the complainant’s act is not intentional or gross negligence to the extent that it can be recognized as an abuse of right, it cannot be readily concluded that the complainant’s act is a tort.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da29481 Decided April 28, 2006, etc.) In light of the above legal principles, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) according to the evidence No. 1 of this case, the defendant filed a complaint against the plaintiffs as a suspicion of interference with business; (b) was investigated; and (c) as a result, the plaintiffs was subject to a non-prosecution disposition by the plaintiffs without suspicion (defluence of evidence).

However, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. 1 (including each number), the whole purport of the pleadings, namely, the prosecutor determined that it is difficult for the prosecutor to recognize the Defendant’s non-prosecution of the Defendant while making a non-prosecution decision against the Plaintiffs; and the Defendant’s contents of the complaint are not false but based on a certain part of the facts and may be deemed to be somewhat exaggerated circumstances, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to deem the Defendant’s act of accusation as an abuse of right by intention or gross negligence; and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it is based on the different premise.