1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 6, 2013, the Defendant, who entered the company operated by the Plaintiff, retired from the Defendant’s unfaithful job attitude on February 14, 2014.

B. In order to raise awareness of the fact that the Defendant was actually dismissed and damaged to the Plaintiff, the Defendant told the Plaintiff to the effect that he retired from office the Plaintiff’s sexual indecent act to the employee of the Plaintiff, although there was no fact that the Plaintiff was sexual harassment or sexual indecent act.

C. The Plaintiff’s trader terminated the Plaintiff’s transaction contract with the company operated by the Plaintiff, referring to the issue of the Defendant’s morality of the Plaintiff’s prisoners of war.

The plaintiff is suffering from considerable mental suffering, such as using the name of the defendant, which is a sexual indecent act, and having the actual crisis of business closure.

E. Therefore, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff 10 million won as consolation money to the above illegal act.

2. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the entire arguments in this court, the defendant made a statement to the effect that the defendant, who is an employee of the plaintiff's customer C, was sexual harassment against the plaintiff. The plaintiff, on Nov. 2, 2013, after drinking alcohol at the time of the company business trip to the defendant's right side at the front of the defendant's business trip, caused the defendant to commit indecent act by forcing him.

‘The facts charged as criminal facts and sentenced to a sentence of one-year suspension of execution from the court on February 11, 2015 (Tgu District Court Decision 2014Ma1278). The defendant was prosecuted as a crime of defamation under Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act and sentenced to a fine (Tgu District Court Decision 2014MaMa449).

According to the above facts, it is difficult to see that the defendant spreads false facts to the plaintiff's employees, and it is also difficult to see that the defendant spreads false facts to the plaintiff's employees.