1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 8-1 to 5 and Eul evidence 6 to 8.

The Plaintiff worked as F by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) established with investments from D, etc., and was dismissed on January 13, 201 by a resolution of a temporary general meeting of shareholders.

The plaintiff's request for remedy through the National Labor Relations Commission was all dismissed.

B. Defendant C was the representative director of E.

C. From July 15, 2014 to July 15, 2014, Defendant B via the Internet medium called “G”

8. Between 22 and 22, an article of the same content as attached Table 1 and 5 (hereinafter “instant article”) was published.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Defendant C, the representative director of E, took advantage of the benefit by unfairly operating the company for a long time.

(2) Accordingly, even though the Plaintiff presented a constructive opinion to the D group and D group for the development of E, Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant C, posted the instant article on the Internet without properly verifying the factual relations, including expressions, such as malicious civil petitioners (influence), dismissal of misconduct, social music, yellow dust, slaughter, isolation, and manipulation of official document.

(3) Therefore, since the Defendants conspired to report false facts for the purpose of slandering and insulting the Plaintiff, thereby impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation, they are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff.

B. (1) In the event that a person defames another person by making a statement of facts through the newspaper, press, and publication, the plaintiff claims that the alleged facts are false or false as the cause of the claim, and that if the plaintiff seeks damages, the burden of proof for the falsity is borne by the plaintiff.

In addition, the authenticity of media reports is also consistent with objective facts when examining the purport of the entire content.