1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8, 20 to 25, Eul evidence No. 5, and Eul evidence No. 4-1 to 3.

The plaintiff married with the non-party D and formed E/F, and the plaintiff and D were married with the non-party D on April 14, 2005.

B. After having divorced with the Plaintiff, D had an interview with G, and after having an interview, G published the articles in the attached Form stating that the reason why D divorced with the Plaintiff was due to the Plaintiff’s attending the H church and caused home friendliness (hereinafter “instant articles”).

C. On September 3, 2009, Defendant B posted the article of this case under the title “DC Cr., consolation money, child support, and her husband’s meeting” under the title “A” under the title “I [G]’s false statement, consolation money, child support, and her husband’s domestic violence crime” under the title “I’s typical veterinary method to induce her husband to commit domestic violence” (hereinafter “the instant car page”). The article of this case was inserted under the victim’s husband meeting column “the victim’s husband meeting” in the above car page, and on May 1, 2010, the article of this case was inserted under the title “I’s name “I’s false statement, consolation money, child support, and her husband’s domestic violence crime”.

From October 31, 2011, Defendant C became 3 of the pertinent car page.

E. (i) As a result of the relevant criminal case, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants posted the instant article to G and posted it on the instant car page in order to jointly select and slander the H church accompanying the Plaintiff as a non-profit religion among the issuers of G, and filed a criminal complaint due to the violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation). However, the prosecutor of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office (Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office) rendered a disposition against Defendant C on June 18, 2013, without suspicion, and Defendant B.