1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The plaintiff's assertion that Defendant B belongs to the defendant company, and Defendant D is the head of the defendant company.

Defendant B infringed the Plaintiff’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts that “the Plaintiff was playing with another person’s male and female” around 2010, and the Defendant Company treated the Plaintiff on the ground of such false facts. Defendant D received a request for the suspension of the Plaintiff’s refusal due to the above tort, but continued to vain tex.

Since the Defendants suffered mental pain to the Plaintiff by the aforementioned unlawful act, they are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money claimed as consolation money.

2. Determination

A. Although it is not confirmed whether the Plaintiff had been playing with another person's male and female, it is not possible to believe that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence. Rather, according to the statements in Eul 1-1, 3, and 6, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with an investigative agency on the charge of defamation as alleged by the Plaintiff, but made a disposition of rejection or rejection without suspicion by the investigative agency. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a petition for the Seoul High Court's ruling on each of the above dismissal decisions, but the reappeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court but the reappeal was also dismissed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant B was not justified without any need to further examine.

B. Next, the Defendant Company rendered unfavorable treatment to the Plaintiff on the grounds of the above content.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge whether Defendant D was in vain or in vain with the above content, and there is no other evidence, and there is no reason to further examine the claim against Defendant Company and Defendant D.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants.