1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 6:

From March 2013, the Defendant gave a lecture on the subject of education at D Educational Institutes located in Guri-si C (hereinafter “Plaintiff Private Teaching Institutes”) operated by the Plaintiff.

B. At around 19:00 on December 15, 2016, the Defendant made a statement to the same effect as the attached text messages to the students during the process of the first-year middle class lecture of Plaintiff Driving Schools, and sent text messages, such as the attached text messages, to the students of the second-year middle class class of high school who did not attend the above lecture at around 22:00 on the same day.

C. From December 16, 2016, the Defendant retired from the lecture of the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute, and demoted the subject of education at the FF teaching institute located E in Guri-si, Guri-si.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant act,” in total, of the Defendant’s acts from December 15, 2016 to December 16, 2016, determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim on December 2, 201

A. In full view of the following circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized in light of the empirical rule that the Defendant’s act of this case affected the Plaintiff’s business performance, such as refunding tuition fees, etc. by a part of the students of the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute due to the Plaintiff’s act of this case, and thus, constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff.

The defendant is liable for compensating the plaintiff for damages incurred thereby.

1. It is difficult to deem it illegal solely on the fact that an instructor of a driving school has retired from his/her existing lectures and provided lectures at a new driving school.

However, the defendant, beyond simply stating the future plan, leads to a refund of the existing registered lectures by Slandering the plaintiffs' driving personnel.