1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant B, a child care teacher located in Busan Dong-gu EF-gu, was on November 11, 2015, who was employed as the above child care teacher, and was on the false statement that Defendant B, a child care teacher located in Busan Dong-gu, caused him to the Plaintiff because he did not confirm the above fact. Defendant D did not confirm the above fact and treated the Plaintiff as assault teachers, and the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as miscarriage, due to the number of parents, who were working as the child care teacher, and due to the confirmation telephone, etc., the Plaintiff was jointly and severally liable to pay consolation money of KRW 10 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

2. In full view of the determination as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 2, the fact-finding inquiry conducted with the annual proposal office of this court, the witness G testimony and the whole purport of the arguments by the witness G, the defendant Eul stated that he would have been a H male, and the defendant Eul said that he would have "I would like to go to the plaintiff while playing a block play" around November 11, 2015, although the defendant D confirmed CCTV video on November 11, 2015 of the above childcare center, but did not appear in the face of the assault that the defendant Eul told, and the plaintiff performed an operation with a mooring heritage on November 23, 2015 is recognized.

However, according to the above evidence, the following facts and circumstances are also acknowledged.

① The Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant D without accusation and defamation, and the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office rejected the complaint on January 27, 2016 on the ground that “it is evident that Defendant D had no true fact with the competent authority, and therefore, it is evident that Defendant D had no true fact with the competent authority.” As to defamation, Defendant D denied that there was no fact of assault against other parents, and the Plaintiff also denied that there was no fact of assault against Defendant D’s parents, and the Plaintiff did not specify Defendant D’s crime, and thus, it is inconsistent with evidence.