Representative Chairman ○○○

2. High ○○;

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Defendant Jeju 4.3 Victims' Bereaved Family Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Association") is a non-corporate body established on October 30, 1988 with some of the bereaved families of the victims of the April 3, 1988, for the purpose of various projects, etc. to restore their legal and institutional honor to persons who have sacrificed on the Jeju 4.3 Incident. The Defendant High ○○○ is the head of the general affairs team of the Defendant Association.

B. On September 2, 2013, at around 14:00 on September 2, 2013, the Plaintiff, who was a representative of the Internet 'Free Tourist Association', attended three U.S. dollars on the issue of designation of memorial days in the Jeju 4.3 Incident, which was held at the 20th international conference hall in Seoul, Korea Press Center (hereinafter referred to as the "the seminars in this case"), and made a personnel statement, and the full text of the personnel statement is as shown in the attached Form (attached omitted).

C. Accordingly, on September 4, 2013, the Defendant’s organization announced a statement of name on the quasi-Dong-dong of the extreme-friendly force and on the opposition to the designation of the New Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Party’s Party’s Party’s Party’s Party’s Party’s Party’s Party Year’s Party’s Party.

D. On the same day, the Jeju-do Residents’ Day, Jeju-do Residents’ Day, etc. reported the above content of the statement to the Defendant’s organization.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff attended the instant seminars and made a statement to the effect that “80% of the residents of Jeju-do shall be 80% as soon as Jeju-do residents and shall suppress the insurrection,” but the Defendant High ○○ prepared a statement containing such contents, and the Defendant’s organization did not confirm the facts and announced the above statement as it is, thereby reporting such contents to the newspapers in Jeju-do. As such, the Plaintiff’s honor was damaged and suffered mental damage, the Plaintiff sought compensation against the Defendants.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendants made a statement to the effect that “80% of the Jeju-do residents should be dumped and suplicated.” In this case’s seminars, the Defendants made a statement to the effect that they were ○○○, not the Plaintiff, and that they were not the Plaintiff, but they made a statement to the effect that: (a) the Plaintiff’s organization opposed to the designation of 4.3 trend; and (b) the victims who were inside the April 3 Peace Park, were supposed with a large number of the suppressions; and (c) thus, they made the Plaintiff’s statement as if they were the Plaintiff’s remarks. In full view of the initial facts as seen earlier and the Defendants’ answers, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant organization did not confirm the facts and announced it as a joint tortfeasor, thereby impairing the Plaintiff’s social reputation and impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation by reporting it to the press; and (d) accordingly, the Defendants were liable to compensate the Plaintiff for mental harm.

B. Scope of liability for damages

In full view of the contents of the name written by the Defendants, the phrases and methods of expression, the Plaintiff’s social status and evaluation thereof, and all other circumstances shown in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to determine the amount as KRW 1,00,000,000.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to each of the Defendants the amount of KRW 1,00,000 and the amount of KRW 1,000 per annum from January 14, 2015, which is the following day after a duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendants, to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act until April 7, 2015, which is the date of the adjudication of this case, and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.