1. Defendant B’s KRW 1,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 28, 2017 to April 27, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff visited the above shopping mall office together with the aforementioned shopping mall office in order to calculate the conclusion of the commercial lease agreement and the estimate of the interior construction work at the 1st underground floor of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. Defendant B is a person working as the director of the management office of the above commercial building.

Defendant B above

A. The Plaintiff, as indicated in the statement, visited a commercial office, expressed a great sound that “the Plaintiff is a low-string fraud.”

C. Defendant B’s above

B. The facts charged as a crime of insult were convicted of a fine of KRW 1,00,000 by Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 201Hun-Ma826, which became final and conclusive as they were dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the widely known source of the Section D located in the city, and, in order to enter into a lease contract with a plan to rent a stolen work by leasing a office Nos. 1 and 5 under the ground, several singings were gathered, including seven construction business operators, and calculated the estimation of the interior work at the above office. However, Defendant B, who did not have a common sense between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, provided the Defendant B, who had no common sense, expressed his will to the Plaintiff, with the intention of “Iskin, Iskin. B. It means that Isn’s own will. B.”

As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to receive KRW 50,000,000, which was agreed to receive from the National well-knowns, due to the lack of commercial lease agreement, and the cost of the display plan of the work and the cost of property damage, such as KRW 10,00,000,000, which was incurred for the program for the display of the work.

In addition, Defendant B suffered from mental suffering due to the above tort committed by Defendant B, which caused severe damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation, and Defendant B sustained 90,000 property damage to the Plaintiff.