1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 2,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from November 14, 2013 to August 19, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a Blog in the name of “D” in the name of “C” at the Internet website (hereinafter “Plaintiff Blog”) and is married with “B”, and the Defendant is the Defendant as Defendant Blog in the name of “F” in the above Nlog’s name.

is a person operating the business.

B. On March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff, as the title “H” in the Plaintiff’s Brog, included the content of the growth process, etc. up to the point of call and to the point of call into J players, etc., of the environment in which I difficult to go from the Internet at the time.

B. A separate statement on the cited or source was made by the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s husband E, and the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s husband E mispercing the instant I-related written comments, such as accepting the Plaintiff or E, and some of the viewers pointed out that the written comments were posted without any indication on the source.

그러자 원고는 2013. 3. 21.경 이 사건 I 관련 글 말머리에"E감독님이 쓴 글 아닙니다^^

The phrase "legal pumps" was inserted.

On March 23, 2013, the defendant thought that the plaintiff created the above article among the comments on I related to I of this case, and referred to the plaintiff, this article was already taken into consideration on the Internet before a few years. The plaintiff posted the above article without the source indication, and puts the issue into the "PP". The plaintiff posted the above article without the source indication, and then posted the statement to the effect that the plaintiff stated that he stated the "PPP" in the first place, and then the defendant again posted the statement to the effect that the plaintiff made the mark of source from the beginning, which led to debate between the plaintiff and the defendant.

C. After the above debate has been raised, the above debate has been reached.