1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. According to the selective claims added by this court, the defendant 15,000.

1. The relevant part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance shall be quoted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act;

However, following the last 4th judgment of the first instance court, “A” was added to “A, although the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2014Do6018, the Defendant was dismissed on October 15, 2014 and the said conviction became final and conclusive after the dismissal of the appeal was made on October 15, 2014,” and “A 36 description” was added to “A 36 description” in the second 7 to 2nd 10

2. The defendant asserts to the effect that the lawsuit of this case against the defendant is unlawful since the defendant's act of this case was done as the representative of F, an incorporated association, and thus against the defendant's individual, since it was done against the non-party standing.

However, in the case of a claim for performance, the plaintiff has the standing to be a party, and the existence of the obligation is only a matter to be determined within the main text, so the above defense by the defendant is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a tort that interferes with the Plaintiff’s game machine sales business by damaging the Plaintiff’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts and spreading false facts.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 200 million equivalent to the new product price of KRW 80,000,000, which was incurred by the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the instant sales contract (Article 750 of the Civil Act), and the Plaintiff’s disposal of 80 game products produced by the Plaintiff from G to sell to G without selling them in any other place (the Plaintiff’s installation of operating information display device after receiving down payment from G, which cannot be sold at the new product price, because it was attached to the game machine, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff to sell the second-hand product as used goods), or as such, to compensate for damages other than the property of the said tort.