1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 21, 2017 to March 30, 2018.

1. The Plaintiff, as an attorney-at-law, claimed that Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Electronic”), was a semiconductor assembly worker at the solar workplace of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ssung Electronic”), and the case of revocation of the approval of medical care non-approval filed against the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (Seoul High Court 2014Nu8492; hereinafter “related lawsuit”), the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff of the pertinent lawsuit, the Plaintiff, as an attorney-at-law, was acting as the Plaintiff of the pertinent lawsuit.

The defendant is a press company running Internet G (C) as a company for the purpose of publishing and selling newspapers.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff is a member of the non-governmental group “H.” The Plaintiff is a non-corporate group operated with an organization, such as regular members, general meetings, operating committee, and representatives, in accordance with the articles of incorporation, and is primarily engaged in activities related to occupational diseases related to the Samsung electronic semiconductor sector, such as asserting that white and cerebral diseases, which occur to workers in the semiconductor sector, are occupational accidents, and participating in the process of negotiating compensation therefor.

On April 15, 2016, the Defendant posted an article of the same [D] as indicated in the [Attachment] written by the reporter belonging to the Defendant (hereinafter “the article of this case”). The article of this case “The Plaintiff, an agent of the Plaintiff, did not inform the client A (F) of the fact that the lawsuit of this case was pending two times or more for one year and four months,” and “the Plaintiff transferred that the distance from the causal relationship proving the industrial accident, such as the health and safety diagnosis report, etc., in 2013 after 13 years from the retirement of the deceased A, was a non-discriminatory demand for data without discrimination (hereinafter “part B”), “the Plaintiff is the client’s mother to be seen to have worked outside of the litigation affairs” (hereinafter “the legal ethics”).