1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status 1 of the parties concerned ) Plaintiff A Association (hereinafter “Plaintiff Association”).

(2) Plaintiff B was appointed as the president of the Plaintiff Association on March 25, 2013 and was appointed as the president of the Association on March 22, 2016, and was reappointed on March 22, 2016.

3) The Defendant is both bureau chiefs and reporters of E. B. The Defendant’s article 1) The Plaintiff Association shall elect representatives for each field of construction technology, and then the president of the Association shall be elected at a general meeting composed of the president and representatives.

2) On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiff Association: (a) published the 8th representative election; (b) at the 28th regular meeting on March 22, 2016; and (c) the representatives elected at the 12th regular election were scheduled to elect the 12th president of the Association; (c) the Defendant published the article (F, G); (b) on October 26, 2015; and (c) on November 2, 2015, the article (H, I); and (d) on March 9, 2016, the article (H, J, and K) respectively. [In each of the items and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 3, based on the grounds for recognition, the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. At the time of leaving the election of representatives and the president of the Association, the Defendant, which is the cause of the Plaintiffs, prepared articles using irregular and strong language with respect to the Plaintiff Association and the Plaintiff, and damaged the Plaintiffs’ honor.

The election continued to make a negative report without ascertaining the facts about various suspicions.

The Defendant, as a journalist, should have paid attention to the content or method of expression so as not to cause damage to the Plaintiffs, taking into account the media power and interest of the electors in the Association at the time prior to the election. However, the Defendant violated the duty of care for the content or method of expression, etc. by leaving negative expressions, such as “influence against the supervisory body,” “influence”, “influence of the person in charge,” “influence,” “pre-agreement”, “influence,” and “sent personnel.