2...

A. On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff had an interview with F in general programming channels in relation to the structure of the sinking accident E, and the interview was broadcast immediately.

Since then, many media companies reported articles about plaintiffs.

B. On April 18, 2014, the article on the Internet community website’s “G” was posted on the bulletin board as “G” on April 18, 2014, Defendant D written the comments on the said bulletin on the same day, stating that “Iskhum, such as the cost of decination, and Ishum,” “Iskhum” on the same day.

C. On April 20, 2014, the Plaintiff’s photograph and writing were posted on the musical bulletin board “H” as of April 20, 2014. On the same day, Defendant B written the above bulletin board “the year in which he/she reaches the gap of the heart.”

As the title "I" is "I" on the musical bulletin board of the community, "I" on April 20, 2014, the defendant C written the comments "I" on the above bulletin board on the same day.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff was indicted on the charge of impairing the honor of the Commissioner General of the Korea Coast Guard by openly pointing out false facts with respect to the interview with F and the above interview, but was acquitted on January 9, 2015 from the first instance court (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Ra612).

The prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and changed the indictment, but the plaintiff was sentenced to the reversal and innocence of the judgment of first instance in the appellate court on September 1, 2016 (Seoul District Court 2015No200).

The prosecutor's appeal against the appellate judgment is currently pending in the final appeal court (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do14678).

E. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants with an investigative agency on the charge of insult, but all the Defendants were subject to a disposition of suspending prosecution at the prosecutor’s office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 12, and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition of liability for damages, the Plaintiff’s ambiguous expressions are as follows.