1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1,400,00 for Plaintiff A, and KRW 300,000 for each of them to Plaintiff B and C; and (b) from July 20, 2019 to July 20, 200 for each of them.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 6, 2006, from October 25, 2018, Plaintiff A operated a Bochina Institute (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”) with the trade name “E” at the Sungnam-gu correction district. Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C is the Plaintiff’s child.

B. The Defendant: (a) registered the first child from March 2013 to May 2018; and (b) registered the second child from March 2015 to May 2018 in each of the instant private teaching institutes.

C. Plaintiff A filed a complaint against the Defendant on charges of defamation, insult, interference with business, etc. with an investigative agency. Accordingly, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 on April 15, 2019 with the Sungwon District Court’s Sung-nam branch rendered a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 due to defamation and interference with business.

The facts constituting the crime of summary order are ① interference with the Defendant’s distribution of false facts with F, a student of the instant private teaching institute, by telephone, that the Plaintiff A was winded on June 2018; ② interference with defamation and business due to the distribution of false facts to the faculty of the instant private teaching institute around July 12, 2018; ③ interference with defamation and business due to the distribution of false facts to the effect that the Plaintiff A was in in a bad relationship with a man, with the faculty of the instant private teaching institute; ③ interference with defamation and business due to the distribution of false facts to the effect that the Plaintiff A was in a bad relationship with a man, with a faculty of the instant private teaching institute on July 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion revealed that the Defendant spreads false information to the Plaintiff’s faculty of a private teaching institute, such as “the wind has been complicated,” “the male relationship is complicated,” “any male relationship is in secret with a private teaching institute,” and “the private teaching institute will close down immediately.” G published false information in NAV car, thereby bringing comments on the Plaintiff’s assertion. The Defendant instigated the Plaintiff and filed a civil petition with the Office of Education for an administrative fine, such as failure to issue cash receipts, etc.

As above, the defendant's above-mentioned harm, etc.