A. From around 2011, the Plaintiff was a person with internal relations with the Defendant, and the Defendant’s wife C, who became aware of this, from May 8, 2011, was the same year.

9. Until December 12, 200, the Plaintiff’s residence and the teaching school of English private teaching institutes, as well as the Plaintiff’s disturbance around D 402, Ansan-gu, Mayang-gu, Manyang-gu, and interfered with the Plaintiff’s business, and damaged the Mandae-gu signboard around May 20, 201

B. Accordingly, on February 8, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against C due to defamation, etc., and the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C reached an agreement between the Plaintiff and C on February 8, 2012 that “In relation to the accusation cases, such as defamation, etc., of the Republic of Korea District Prosecutors’ Office No. 201-No. 24074, the Plaintiff and C shall no longer file a civil or criminal complaint on this case, and both the Defendant and C shall immediately withdraw the criminal complaint and civil litigation. The Plaintiff shall not contact or contact with the Defendant in the future, and the Defendant shall pay three million won to the Plaintiff as consolation money for damage, etc. to C’s signboards (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. After that, C filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for consolation money claim No. 2013da1974 (hereinafter “relevant case”), and C testified to the effect that the Plaintiff was not included in the subject matter of the instant agreement in the relevant case, as a witness, and the Plaintiff’s liverion was not included in the relevant case.

(hereinafter “instant testimony”). D.

On the grounds of the testimony, etc. of this case, the adjudication division of the related case rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff was not included in the content of the agreement of this case, and rendered a judgment on November 14, 2013 that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 6 million to the Defendant and its delay damages.”

E. The defendant's testimony of this case was lodged against the plaintiff for perjury and was conducted thereafter in the police investigation and prosecutor's office's investigation.