1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant D, C, and B, from around 16:10 on September 7, 201 to 20:00, knew that the promotion committee (6j) prior to the Plaintiff’s office had been held at around 100, the former 100 promotion committee (6j) was held in order to re-examine and resolve any agenda that was not handled at the time, the promotion committee (7j) was held at around 19:00 on the same day, and thereby interfered with the deliberation and resolution of the agenda items of the promotion committee including the victim by force for about 3 hours and 50 minutes, due to the fact that the promotion committee’s members were kept at the entrance of the promotion committee to make it difficult for them to attend the meeting.

B. Defendant B, at the above date and time, destroyed the property by spraying a black frame on the CCTV camera (at the market price equivalent to KRW 4,50,000), which was installed on the promotional office entrance (on the entrance price of KRW 3 million) and on the entrance, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence (written judgment) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant D, C, and B-1-A participated in Defendant E and F-B’s act of interfering with the business as described in the Defendants’ 7th promotion committee due to the Defendants’ interference with the business, which led to the Defendants’ failure to perform the Plaintiff’s 7th promotion committee, KRW 7,19,760 in the aggregate of the expenses incurred for the meeting ( KRW 1,610,00, postal service fees of KRW 165,760, food service charges of KRW 189,00, stenographic fee of KRW 150,000, KRW 880,000, and KRW 150,000, and KRW 880,000,

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the amount equivalent to KRW 4,125,00,000 for the total labor cost. 2) Defendant B-1-B.

As a result of damage to property in the port, the Plaintiff suffered damages using KRW 660,00 as the replacement cost of each damaged entrance, and CCTV replacement cost of KRW 3,410,00,00, and Defendant B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for such damages.

B. Determination 1 of this part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages equivalent to the meeting cost against the Defendants is hindered by the Defendants.