2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around September 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff intended to pay public charges via land at the reception counter. However, the employees of the Bupyeong Saemaul Depository violated the Plaintiff’s personality right by setting the Plaintiff to those who are unable to use the unmanned collection machine at the place where multiple visitors exist, by refusing to receive the land through the ground, and forcing the use of the unmanned collection machine. (2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition demanding the Safety Administration, which is the legal supervisory authority of the Bupyeong Saemaul Depository, to determine the legitimacy of the act of the Bupyeong Saemaul Depository, and the Safety Administration transferred the above civil petition to the Defendant in charge of the field guidance of the community credit cooperative.

However, the defendant did not fulfill his duty to verify facts, such as on-site verification.

3. The defendant's personality right was infringed by the defendant's above illegal act. The defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of 2 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff, and the defendant's web site operated by the defendant is obligated to post a letter of apology about the above illegal act.

B. In full view of the statement and the purport of the entire argument as to No. 1, the Plaintiff was seeking to pay public charges at the reception counter by leaving the Bupyeong Saemaeul Bank, and the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Ministry of Security and Security on the ground that an employee of the Bupyeong Saemaeul Bank unfairly refused to receive the civil petition, and the Ministry of Security and Security and Public Administration transferred the treatment of the above civil petition to the Defendant.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to deem that the employee of the Bupyeong-gu Saemaul Savings Depository refused to receive the counter unfairly. According to the Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant sent a reply to the plaintiff's civil petition on October 16, 2013, and it is difficult to deem that the defendant failed to perform the duty to investigate the plaintiff's civil petition, and otherwise, evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion.