A. The Plaintiff is working as a contractual professional in C film festivals.

A person notified of the exclusion from re-commissioning around September 2016, and the defendant is the chairperson of the above motion picture system.

B. On September 29, 2016, the Defendant made a statement to the F press reporter G, which asked the Plaintiff’s reason for the exclusion from the re-commission in the presence of the Plaintiff, and “the Plaintiff attempted to dismiss due to lack of practical capabilities, but the Plaintiff was employed due to sexual indecent act.” On December 19, 2016, the Defendant made the following articles under the title “H,” and posted them in the F press, an Internet media, following the confirmation of the facts about the persons concerned.

C The chairman of the film B sub-execution committee recently held that “the former officer was sexually indecent in which the Amo executive officer of the Amomoman was sexually sexually indecent in which the Bmoman was sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexual.”

The appointment contract worker B was working in Cmotion picture festivals for several years, but the new J enforcement chairman was excluded from re-commissioning with the expiration of the last nine months while the motion picture festivals was set up in the 20th motion picture festivals.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 12, Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the right to claim damages is established;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant stated that he was employed by G, who was a reporter, even though the plaintiff could not be re-commissioned due to lack of real ability, that he was sexually indecent act, and that he committed a tort that damages the plaintiff's social status and value by creating articles through G, thereby damaging the plaintiff's evaluation of the social status and value. Accordingly, it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering, and therefore, the defendant should be accused in money to the plaintiff.