1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is the head office of the franchise business that runs the E franchise business with the trademark “D,” and the Plaintiff B is the representative director of the Plaintiff Company.

B. The Defendant posted a notice in attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant notice”) on his own Internet wlogs (hereinafter “instant Blogs”) on Flogs. The Defendant posted a notice in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant bulletin”).

C. However, each of the comments written in Nos. 2 Nos. 1 and 13 in the instant article constitutes false facts. The Defendant, as above, posted the instant article containing false facts on the instant Blog, thereby impairing the honor and credit of the Plaintiffs, and thereby causing property damage, such as impairing the reputation and credit of the Plaintiffs, and undermining the conclusion of the franchise agreement to the Plaintiff Company.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff company the amount of 5 million won in material damage compensation and 5 million won in total, and 10 million won in consolation money, 10 million won in consolation money, and 10 million won in consolation money and damages for delay in relation to each of the above amounts.

2. Determination

A. Whether defamation was established or not, there is no dispute between the parties with respect to the fact that the Defendant posted the instant bulletin on the Blog in Flogs, and the instant bulletin contains a statement of specific facts that could undermine the social evaluation of the Plaintiffs’ honor and credit regardless of whether it is true, and thus, the Defendant damaged the Plaintiffs’ honor and credit through the instant bulletin.

B. In order to establish defamation by publicly alleging false facts as to whether illegality is discovered, the publicly alleged fact should be a degradation of the social evaluation of a specific person. However, in a case where the material part is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the publicly alleged fact, even if there is a somewhat exaggerated expression, it can be viewed as a false fact.