1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in the business of selling walves with the trade name “D” in Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul.

B. On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff’s E paid advertising expenses of KRW 40,000 to “F”, a website (hereinafter “F”), and posted an advertisement advertising the Plaintiff’s above place of business, and received orders from F members and sold woos and woos.

(c) During that process, E sent 10 copies of woos, woos, woos, woos, woos, and stamps from F members, which, upon entering the order of F members, requested F members to pack the woos and woos as gifts, and sold woos and woos by packaging the woos and woos ordered from F members to the woos and woos together with the stamps.

When the above sales act was reported to the press and the article related to various Internet bulletin boards was posted, the Defendant posted the comments on the article’s column of “G” on January 4, 2015, stating that “the Defendant sold annoyedly annoying of the origin, which would prevent funeral from the floor of this case.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's main defense against the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff planned a lawsuit with F members in bad faith for the purpose of receiving a mutual agreement, and claimed damages against NAN more than 00 persons by leading the plaintiff, it shall be dismissed as it constitutes abuse of right of action.

However, the above circumstance alleged by the defendant alone is that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case only aims to inflict pain on the defendant and inflict damages on the defendant, and it is difficult to view it as an abuse of right as an exercise of right against social order and it is difficult to view it as an abuse of right.