1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s request for retrial is dismissed.

2. The costs of the retrial shall be the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant.

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent in records or obvious to this court.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant are members of the “C” camera (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Internet camera”) established following the Internet portal site (www.daum.ne.). The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s penbook used by the Plaintiff in the instant Internet camera is “D” and the penbook used by the Defendant is “B”.

B. On November 11, 2014, the Defendant posted the comments (hereinafter “instant comments”) as follows on the free bulletin board of the Internet camera of this case on the following day:

B D E

C. On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance claiming damages against the Defendant, asserting that “the Defendant damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation by posting the instant comments,” and the lawsuit pending in the first instance trial, the Defendant also filed a counterclaim seeking damages by asserting that “the Plaintiff posted a majority of the comments that the Defendant defames the Defendant’s reputation on the instant Internet camera.” On July 15, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing both the Plaintiff’s principal claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff appealed as Suwon District Court 2015Na28286 (principal lawsuit) (the judgment of the first instance court of this case) and the Defendant also appealed as Suwon District Court 2015Na28293 (Counterclaim) (the judgment of the first instance court of this case) on August 5, 2015. However, the said court rendered a judgment that all appeals of the Plaintiff and the Defendant were dismissed (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) on March 11, 2016, and the judgment of the first instance court of this case became final and conclusive on April 1, 2016 because both the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not appeal.

2. Article 459(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The pleadings and judgments on the merits shall be made within the scope of the grounds for the request for a retrial” shall be within the scope of the request for a retrial.