1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendants are different from the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building, E building, and F building.

With respect to this case, this court's use is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition or dismissal of any of the following parts, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 4 of the decision of the first instance court, "The Assembly and Demonstration Act" in Part 16 shall be amended to "The Assembly and Demonstration Act".

Part 7 of the judgment of the first instance court is 15 of the judgment "3. Judgment on the claim for prohibition of defamation".

Part 5 through 8 of the judgment of the first instance court are as follows.

Article 764 of the Civil Act refers to an objective evaluation received from the world, such as a person’s character, virtue, reputation, and credit. In particular, a corporation’s reputation and credit is not the case of a juristic person, and the act of impairing reputation is an infringement on its social evaluation (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1450, Jun. 14, 198). Defamation against another person under the civil law may be conducted by means of expressing facts and may be conducted by means of expressing opinions. In a pure opinion or comment that is not premised on a statement of fact, liability for damages caused by defamation is not established in the case of a pure opinion or comment that is not premised on a statement of fact. On the other hand, even in a case where an expression of opinion is directly or indirectly expressed on the premise of it, if the existence of a fact is expressed in light of the entire purport of the expression and it is possible to infringe on the social value or evaluation of a specific person, and thus, it constitutes defamation if it is proved solely for the public interest of the same person (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da757365, Feb. 27, 20075, 2008).