1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2...

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. On November 9, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion posted the title “D” on the bulletin board of “C” (hereinafter “instant Internet camera”), which was established following the Internet portal site (DAUM), and on the same day, the Defendant, in writing, posted a statement on the same day, “I would not be forgotten even if I would have been aware of the Plaintiff’s reputation,” and “I would not be forgotten even if I would have been aware of the fact that I would have been organized violence even before I would have done so,” and “I would have damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation.” As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages amounting to five million won.

B. In order to establish defamation, a statement of “specific facts” that may infringe on the victim’s social value or evaluation should be indicated. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to view the above notice as an expression of defamation that explicitly expresses specific facts that infringe on the Plaintiff’s social value or evaluation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

2. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim

A. On November 9, 2014, the Defendant’s assertion that “F case” was sent to Melel by F, etc. on the Internet Carbook bulletin board of the instant case, “F,” and “F, etc. committed assault and defamation: F, etc., and compensate for damages in KRW 7 million,” and “F, etc.,” and “B, etc., refer to the modification, etc. of the purport of the claim in August 2014,” and refer to the application for tin name, stenographic recording, and preparatory documents.

G In regard to the G case: B, while G has made defamation and compensate for damages, it was the closing of argument to the dispute in 2014Na2239, I sent it to Melel, referring to the application for resumption of pleadings, application for tination, and summary brief.

H Case: B worked as an employee, but H was aware of a monthly wage, and 2014Na2819.

B, however, he did not have any reason to reduce monthly rent because H had resided in his house, but he brought a lawsuit of 2 to 40 million won with the knowledge of monthly rent, and H had been in excess of B.