1. From May 11, 2016 to February 15, 2017, Defendant A’s KRW 5 million with respect to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose business purpose is events, performance planning, exhibition, etc.

From July 4, 2014 to January 18, 2015, Defendant A served as Gyeongbuk-do Headquarters B under Defendant Gyeongbuk-do.

B. On October 2, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a “D event operation service contract” organized by Defendant Gyeong-do, and Defendant A entered into a contract with Defendant Gyeong-do to enter into the said service contract. In relation to the said event, the Plaintiff was in charge of some duties, such as concluding a contract with the Plaintiff, conducting an event, and paying expenses.

C. At the request of the above Gyeongbuk Fire Headquarters, the Plaintiff, in addition to the events that did not exist in the original service contract, continued to hold the above events.

However, on November 26, 2014, the said border fire fighting headquarters paid only service costs under the original service contract to the Plaintiff, and did not pay additional event costs. The said border fire fighting headquarters paid additional event costs to the Plaintiff only on December 5, 2014.

On December 19, 2014, Defendant A posted the same article as indicated in the attached Form on his NA B B B B, using a computer at his own house on December 2014.

(Period of Posting) From December 19, 2014 to December 30, 2014, 205, 25 visitors, and 36 times the number of the notices at issue.

On April 10, 2015, Defendant A issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 as the Daegu District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 201Da3838, Apr. 10, 2015, and the said summary order became final and conclusive as it did not request formal trial.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. In light of the above facts, Defendant A’s above notice was deemed to have infringed upon the Plaintiff’s social value or assessment. Therefore, the above Defendant is obligated to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damages arising therefrom. (A) The Plaintiff’s above tort committed by Defendant A, supra, in 2015, caused the Plaintiff’s losses on the first half-yearly sales in KRW 98,931,143 (a).