1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, and Plaintiff for retrial).

1. Basic facts

A. On November 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of consolation money of KRW 5,000,000 and damages for delay on the bulletin board (hereinafter “instant bulletin board”) posted by the Plaintiff on the Internet portal site (DAUM), asserting that “I would not be forgotten even if I would have previously known that I would not be aware of the fact that I would but would have changed the characteristics of the criminals, which were changed from the fact that I would not be aware of the fact that I would have been a part of the organized violence of the military Simra, even if I would have previously known, I would have damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation.”

In the above case, on November 9, 2014, the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff, stating that “The Plaintiff sent it to Melel for reference in the instant car page, etc. in the instant lawsuit with H and the Defendant,” thereby impairing the Defendant’s honor. In so doing, the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff seeking consolation money of KRW 1,000,000 and delay damages therefor.

In the above case, on July 15, 2015, the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment that the plaintiff's main lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim are all dismissed (the main lawsuit of the Suwon District Court 2014Daso246878 (main lawsuit), and the main lawsuit of the defendant) (the counterclaim).

B. As to the judgment of the first instance, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed from Suwon District Court 2015Na28347 (principal lawsuit), and 2015Na28354 (Counterclaim), and this court is difficult to view that the text published by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on November 9, 2014, constitutes defamation expressions indicating specific facts that infringe on the other party’s social values or evaluations.

“For the reasons that the appeal of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant was dismissed, the judgment subject to a retrial was pronounced.

C. As to this, the lower judgment became final and conclusive on April 27, 2016, on the grounds that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not appeal all of them.