1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are between the plaintiff and the new church known to each other.

B. On February 2016, the Defendant stated that “A et al., a police officer of the Central Police Agency C and D, the same church believersed with the Plaintiff to have been employed and to have been engaged in the conference. It is the same that the Plaintiff wanted to have sexual intercourse in return for seeking the workplace. Therefore, the Defendant refused to do so.”

C. On July 9, 2018, the Defendant was at the Changwon District Court Jinju Branch Branch on the same day.

With respect to the facts stated in the paragraph, a summary order of KRW 300,000 was issued for the crime of defamation (Jinwon District Court 2018 Gowon Branch 2018 Gowon Branch 1673), and the above summary order was finalized on July 27, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 7 and 8 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Where the Plaintiff’s reputation is harmed by indicating the occurrence of the liability for damages, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the alleged fact is false or false as the cause of the claim, and sought damages, the burden of proof of the falsity is borne by the Plaintiff. However, in the event that the Defendant’s assertion that the alleged fact is true and solely pertains to the public interest, the burden of proof as to the grounds for excluding illegality exists to the Defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da58823 Decided January 24, 2008). As to the instant case, the health team, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant made a false statement to the members of the church, etc., thereby impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation. However, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant made a false statement to the members of the church, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the content of the Defendant’s statement to the members of the church is false. Therefore,

However, even though the defendant's statement to his neighbors is not false, it is clear that the social evaluation of the plaintiff has been lowered. Thus, the defendant suffered the plaintiff due to such defamation.