2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On February 11, 2010, the Plaintiff graduated from the graduate school of the Daejeon New Abuse School (Seoul High School) and was employed as a full-time lecturer of the D Religious Organization E branch in Daejeon Middle-gu (hereinafter “E branch”) around November 30, 201.

B. On November 25, 2013, the Egyptian passed a resolution to choose not to employ the Before the year 2013 on the grounds of the church finance by convening a policy meeting around November 25, 2013

C. The defendant is the pastor of the E church.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff disposed of a private taxi that is a student, and arranged the church developed by the Plaintiff in order to obtain the necessary experience in the trade necessary for the use of a wood company, and began with the history of the Jeondo History at the Egym Association in which the Defendant was a wood company.

B. However, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff without any instruction, such as “not for the meeting but for the meeting of the church, which must work to speak for the meeting of the church,” and obstructed the Plaintiff’s receipt of a wood case by causing the Plaintiff to spread false facts, damage the reputation, etc. with the Plaintiff’s refusal.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff was unable to receive a wooden case and became a pastor.

C. In the Defendant’s unlawful act, the Plaintiff suffered losses of KRW 83,839,80, and KRW 53,000,000, in the difference of the personal taxi margin value disposed of for a clerical error in the course of the Egyptian association as well as KRW 236,40,00, and KRW 25,00,000, and KRW 398,239,80,000, in total, which could have been earned for a pastor, due to the Defendant’s unlawful act.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 398,239,800 and damages for delay.

3. The judgment of the Defendant (F) at around 13:00 on November 11, 2012, even though the victim (the Plaintiff in this case) had not expressed a bad faith on the wife B (the Defendant in this case), he would be the bridge of the Doggggggggggggggggggggggggggs to the Egrgrgs.