1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is from December 30, 2015 to November 18, 2016, with respect to KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a cartoon, which has a considerable popular personality map. The Plaintiff is a cartoon.

B. The Defendant, a famous Plaintiff, was in a relationship with the Plaintiff from Twitter, which is a social network service (Soccal Network Service, SNS, hereinafter “SNS”), and was in a relationship with the Plaintiff to the extent of conducting a religious dialogue through Twitter.

C. The Defendant, as of May 11, 2014, posted on his Twitter account (ID: C and D: D) a letter stating that “A coffee spawn spawn spawn and spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn: dat spawn spawn spawn: the Defendant, as of May 11, 2014, spawn spawn spawn spawn.” The Defendant spawn swn the Plaintiff’s contact with the Defendant with the Defendant and spawn swn swn

The Defendant posted a written statement in attached Form 1 to the purport that he was sexually indecent act from the author who claimed that (the Plaintiff’s name was not disclosed) had been sexually indecent act on his Twitter account between E and F after the remainder of the Plaintiff.

E. After considering the Defendant’s above comments, the Plaintiff posted a letter of apology as described in G-Attachment 2 (hereinafter “instant letter of apology”) to his Twitter account with knowledge that the person referred to in the notice was himself.

F. The Defendant, immediately after the notice of the Plaintiff’s apology, posted a letter (hereinafter “instant rebuttal”) as described in attached Table 3 on his Twitter account, stating that the content of the instant apology was against the Defendant’s expression (i.e., “it was an indecent act that was not drunk at the time, and there was an indecent act that the Defendant expressed an displeasure, and that the Plaintiff did not have a proper apology,” and that the Plaintiff did not do so).

G. The Defendant, in mind of the musical works (J) involving the Plaintiff at H and I (H). The Defendant’s writing of the same content as is written in attached Table 4, in mind.