1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from May 20, 2016 to December 20, 2016.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who was going to be a candidate for a National Assembly member in the constituency under the control of “C political party” in the election of the 20th National Assembly member (on May 13, 2016, the date of implementation), and the Defendant was a person who was going to the same constituency under the control of “E political party”.
B. On April 4, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement on the simplification of candidates for the right to vote (hereinafter “instant unification agreement”) regarding the election of the 20th National Assembly members of the constituency No. D, and the main contents thereof are as indicated in the attached Form). Paragraph 5 of that agreement states, “The press report shall not be made until the lapse of 4/6 radius.”
C. On April 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) completed a briefing session at the National Assembly Secretariat’s meeting on April 5, 2016, and asked questions; (b) agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the candidate unification; and (c) the result of the competition appears at his or her opening.
“........” made a statement to the effect.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including evidence with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Paragraph (5) of the Simplification text clearly states that “A press report shall not be made until the completion of warning on April 6, 2016.” Nevertheless, on April 5, 2016, the Defendant committed an unfair competition act using the expression “the right date candidate” to the reporter to the effect that “the candidate for the C Party was able to do so.” The result was the same as the result, and the court and the election commission’s decision did not use the expression “the right date candidate”. However, the Defendant committed an unfair competition act using the expression “the right date candidate”.
3) If so, the unification agreement of this case was reversed due to the above defendant's violation, and thereafter, the defendant unilaterally announced to the effect that "the defendant was finally determined as a candidate for the right to leave, according to the public opinion polls," and further announced to the press.