1. Appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant.

1. The first instance court, the scope of this Court’s adjudication, dismissed the Plaintiff’s main claim, and dismissed the remainder of the claim for damages, the publication of a letter of apology, and the claim for indirect compulsory performance, by citing part of the Defendant’s counterclaim.

With respect to the part of the principal claim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant filed an appeal against the defendant regarding the claim to publish the apology among the counterclaim claims in the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part concerning the claim to publish the apology among the principal claim and counterclaims, and the remaining part concerning the counterclaim is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part falling under the scope of the judgment of this court as seen earlier) is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination as to the conjunctive counterclaim added by the defendant in the court of first instance. Thus, this case is cited by the main

3. Additional determination on the preliminary counterclaim

A. In relation to the claim for publication of the summary of the Defendant’s assertion, even if the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to publish the same apology as the attached Form 1.

In order to restore the Defendant’s reputation, the Plaintiff is obligated to publish the content as shown in attached Table 2 in the “C” bulletin board of the Internet car page (DAUM) for two days within seven days from the date the judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

B. In the case of defamation, it is difficult to specifically prove the scope of the victim’s property and mental damage and its monetary assessment. Moreover, monetary compensation alone is often insufficient to remedy the victim. Therefore, in order to effectively remedy the victim, the court shall, upon the victim’s request, substitute for or together with compensation for damages to the person who defames another person.