1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion and the defendant are operating each of the private teaching institutes in the Jongno-si Seoul Building.

① Around May 2016, the Defendant stated to the merchants of the said building that “the Plaintiff is taking fraud as if the Plaintiff did not have a master’s degree in computer department and did not have a career as a faculty member at a university.” ② around October 2016, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s parents of the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute operated by the Defendant “the Plaintiff is making a private teaching institute despite the Plaintiff’s lack of practical ability.” ③ the said parents stated to the effect that “the Plaintiff was fluoring the Plaintiff’s home, such as the fluoring person,” and around November 2016, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the Plaintiff was fluoring the Plaintiff’s parents of the private teaching institute operated by the Plaintiff by introducing a high-quality private teaching institute because the Plaintiff had no moral defect and real ability.” The above statements are all false.

Furthermore, around the other hand, the defendant conducted an examination on the plaintiff to the students of the driving school operated by the defendant, and attached the gumor, etc. in the door of the driving school operated by the plaintiff. The defendant notified the above false facts.

Preliminaryly, if the Defendant did not notify the above false facts intentionally, it would not have fulfilled its duty of supervision over the above students’ act as a driving school operator.

Since the defendant committed the above acts to impair the plaintiff's honor and interfere with the plaintiff's operation of the plaintiff's private teaching institute, it is obligated to pay the defendant a total of KRW 63,720,000 and KRW 80,000 as damages for losses.

2. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case for the purpose of obstructing the operation of the defendant's private teaching institute, it should be dismissed as it abused the right of action, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone does not have any grounds.