1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) W is 150,000 won for the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) A and 150,000 won for the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) D and each of them.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At the time of 2012, Plaintiff A is a female student who was in the third grade and third grade and Plaintiff D is the mother of Plaintiff A.

(2) At the time of 2012, Defendant E was in office as a teacher in charge of investigation into school affairs, such as AO middle school violence, and Defendant G was in office as a head of AO middle school character education division (student department).

(3) At the time of 2012, Defendant H, K, N, Q, and T (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant H et al.”) were female students who were in the same group as the Plaintiff’s schools, and Defendant W, Z, AC, AF, AF, AI, and AL (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant W et al.”) were the three-year students in the AO middle school known to and from the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff since 2012, and they were female students who were in the three-year course in the AO middle school other than the Plaintiff A.

B. On June 2012, the case related to Defendant H et al. (1) and four other students AP and Q play Plaintiff A, Defendant K, Q and N.

(2) Around the time of school travel, Plaintiff A, and 4 other than Plaintiff A and Defendant H discussed whether to report AP and Q to the character education division. The Plaintiff suggested that the Plaintiff reported to the character education division, which was reported to the character education division, and Defendant K, N, and Q reported only once after giving warnings to male students. Defendant H expressed opinions, such as the two matchers, and Defendant H expressed a dispute in the process.

(3) Thereafter, Plaintiff A, Defendant H et al. and four others were to drink with each other and to make a payment without personnel or conversation.

C. The case related to Defendant W et al. and five persons (1) was in 2012.

8.9. The plaintiff A, the defendant AF, and the AI were engaged in hosting in the Kakakao Stockholm Section, and the plaintiff A and the defendant AI caused a dispute.

(2) 2012. 8. 11. 원고 A, 피고 W, Z, AC, AF, AL이 모인 카카오톡 대화방에서 원고 A와 피고 AI이 다퉜던 일에 대하여 이야기를 나누다가 피고 AI에 대해 좋지 않은 이야기가 나오게 되었다....