A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, who has de facto controled C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), has already filed a claim for damages against the Defendant due to tort due to defamation by making C as the Plaintiff regarding comments on the comments indicated in the attached list.

Nevertheless, the Plaintiff filed the same suit against the Defendant. Based on the superior position of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is an act of malicious intent to take retaliation against the Defendant to refer to the Plaintiff’s crime and to the surrounding areas, which is abuse of the right of action against the principle of good faith.

Therefore, the filing of the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. The fact that C filed a lawsuit claiming for damages against the Defendant on September 7, 2018 by the Seoul Eastern District Court 2018Gahap110422 regarding comments comments on the attached list is without dispute between the parties.

However, as the Plaintiff and C are separate legal entities, the Plaintiff may claim compensation for damages incurred to the Defendant, separate from claiming compensation for damages incurred to the Defendant by C, which is also the same even if the Plaintiff is a person who actually controls C.

Therefore, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit as an abuse of the right of action solely based on the foregoing circumstances.

The defendant's defense is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the evidence Nos. 6, 7, 10 through 21 of the occurrence of liability for damages, the Defendant, on June 22, 2018, entered the information and communications network by stating the Plaintiff’s sexual indecent act in the media report column of various media companies, such as E, F, G, Press, H, one media, one media, one media, the J press, the one media, the other media, the other media, the other media, the other media, the other media, the other media, and the K press, and the other media.