1. All of the plaintiffs' appeals and the plaintiffs' claims expanded in the trial by the plaintiffs and defendant D Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) changing the order of entry of “Article 12” and “Article 11” among the statement of the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) changing the order of entry of “Article 12” and “Article 11” as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for dismissal or addition of some of the contents as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus,

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. On the 8th judgment of the court of the first instance, the parts from 3 to 9, 10, below, shall be followed as follows.

(2) In addition, Defendant C prepared a false confirmation to the effect that “In addition, the amount of KRW 4,50,000,000 that Defendant C paid to the Plaintiffs is included in KRW 2,750,000,000,000 that Defendant C paid to the Plaintiffs,” and asserts that the honor of the Plaintiffs was undermined by itself, but the content of the confirmation includes the money that Defendant C would pay to the Plaintiffs. However, it is merely merely that Defendant C would claim the said money to the Plaintiffs other than Defendant C, and it does not include the meaning that the Plaintiffs embezzled the F money.

Therefore, since the act of preparing a written confirmation itself cannot be deemed to have impeded the social value or evaluation of the plaintiffs, it does not constitute a violation of the duty of mutual prohibition (However, as examined below, this constitutes a violation of the duty of mutual prohibition). In addition, the plaintiffs asserted that F has damaged the reputation of the plaintiffs using the above written confirmation in filing a complaint by embezzlement of the plaintiffs, but even if the honor of the plaintiffs had been damaged.

Even if this is the F’s act of embezzlement and embezzlement of the plaintiffs, it is difficult to recognize the plaintiffs as being based on the act itself that prepared the written confirmation of the above contents, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.