1. All of the appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling pet clothes and bedclothess through the Internet with the trade name “C,” and the Defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling small clothes, cushions, and bridges, etc. through the Lone Star Program Disclosure Account, “D.”

B. On August 15, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the progress of the co-production project of the Hannam-do, but failed to reach an agreement on the co-production project due to the lack of opinions such as production costs.

(c)

After the above co-production agreement was non-existent, the Plaintiff posted it on the “E” account of Sone Star Program (E) operated by the Plaintiff, in the course of the co-production consultation.

(d)

The defendant is above C.

The appraisal of the Plaintiff’s act, such as the foregoing, became final and conclusive, and on August 24, 2018, approximately 20 persons posted “F” accounts operated by the Defendant for non-disclosure.

the Plaintiff’s “G” links the Plaintiff’s Lone Star Program to “G”

Done in writing “,” and on October 24, 2018, the Defendant sent “D” in the Defendant’s Sone Star Program Account “D.”

Wedgents for fraud

Done at a well-known letter, “I am in place” and “I am in the arching of the highest space quantity.”

E. The plaintiff is the defendant's above D.

The defendant filed a complaint against the act of this paragraph against the defendant, and the prosecutor of the Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor's Office on February 28, 2019 is above D.

The offense of insult against the act of this paragraph requires a summary order of KRW 500,000,000, and the Seoul Western District Court issued a summary order of KRW 300,000 to the Defendant on May 21, 2019 as a fine of KRW 1417.

F. The prosecutor of the Seocho-gu District Public Prosecutor’s Office found the Defendant defective in requesting a summary order, printed out the search screen of the case containing the contents of the request, and posted it on “G” in the Plaintiff’s name book.

G. The defendant's act is identical to the plaintiff's above (f).