2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

A. The plaintiffs are Daegu E-market merchants, and the defendant is elected as the president of the E-market Association.

B. On November 25, 2016, the Plaintiffs were sentenced to a suspended sentence on the grounds that, as executive officers of the Daegu District Court (2016 High Court Decision 2016Da2132) of the Emarket Merchant Association, the Plaintiffs were voluntarily consumed while they were in custody of compensation for damages, such as noise, dust, vibration, and vibration, which were paid by F.

C. On December 17, 2016, the Defendant posted a notice to the effect that the Plaintiffs were expelled from the Merchant Association due to the above criminal facts on the bulletin board of the market (hereinafter “instant notice”). D.

In the process of posting the notice of this case, the Defendant did not comply with the procedures and did not prepare the minutes, even though it provided that the member should be notified of the reason for expulsion and be given an opportunity to defend himself/herself in relation to the procedures for expulsion under Article 16 of the Articles of Incorporation of the Merchant Association, and it was merely 50-55 members of the merchants' association and thus could individually inform the members of the fact of expulsion through verbal or inducement.

E. On June 22, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to a stay of execution of a fine of KRW 1 million for the following facts: (a) the Daegu District Court (No. 2017No4663) rendered a judgment on the suspension of execution of a fine of KRW 1 million for the fact that the Plaintiffs’ honor was damaged by openly pointing out facts by posting the instant notice. The said judgment became final and conclusive on August 29

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant's act of posting the notice of this case constitutes a tort against the plaintiffs, and the defendant is liable for compensation for mental damage suffered by the plaintiffs. The defendant shall pay consolation money to the plaintiffs in consideration of the circumstance of this case, the relation between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of this case.