1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff A shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is three million won against the plaintiff A.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for correction, addition, or modification as follows. As such, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The reason for the judgment of the first instance court is to correct "1282 (combined)" as "1272 (Consolidated)" as stated in the first B(Consolidated) of the reason for the judgment of the first instance.

(b)in Part IV, third, following the first instance judgment:

The Defendant asserts to the effect that “The RUnemployment School that the Plaintiff graduated from February 16, 1977 was a social educational institution whose academic achievement was not recognized at the time. The Plaintiff A did not graduate from a middle school, and the high school that was recognized as a regular academic achievement did not graduate, so this article is not false.”

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the fact that the plaintiff A graduated from the RUnemployment School as of February 16, 197 that the plaintiff A had not been recognized as an educational establishment at the time of February 16, 197 is recognized, but if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to the evidence Nos. 1 and evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, the plaintiff A entered the S Middle School as of March 5, 1968 and was removed on January 10, 1969, and graduated from the R Unemployment High School as of February 16, 197; the fact that the plaintiff graduated from the three-year course of the RUnemployment School as of February 23, 1989.

The contents and expressions of the writing posted by the Defendant around December 19, 2011 had the read person recognize that the Plaintiff’s final academic background was forged or misrepresented by the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff’s final academic background was withdrawn from an elementary school. The content and expressions of the writing posted on May 4, 2013 by the Defendant had the read person recognize that the Plaintiff had forged the Plaintiff’s previous academic background, and without specific confirmation or verification procedures on the Plaintiff’s final academic background, the Defendant had the read person recognize that the Plaintiff had forged the Plaintiff’s previous academic background. As such, the Defendant’s posting of the writing by using the said expressions.