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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

On May 4, 1992, the defendant was the legal couple who completed the marriage report with C.

Around August 2013, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff text messages to the effect that the Plaintiff and C are in inhumane relationship with the Plaintiff, on the Plaintiff’s customer and Internet bulletin board, etc., and on August 27, 2013, the Defendant set up the entrance door of the Plaintiff’s office and sound “ home destruction crimes A”.

The defendant

B. A summary order of KRW 500,000 is issued due to the same criminal facts as stated in the port of appeal (Intimidation and intrusion) and the Defendant’s objection to the summary order filed a request for formal trial (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da754). As a result, the Defendant’s decision was rendered on May 30, 201, which was sentenced to a stay of sentence of KRW 500,000,000, and became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and facts of recognition as to the purport of the whole argument, are clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering due to the defendant's above illegal acts (hereinafter "the illegal acts of this case"), and the defendant is liable to pay consolation money with compensation for mental suffering of the plaintiff.

Furthermore, as to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is obligated to pay, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement of Nos. 1 through 11 (including paper numbers), namely, the Plaintiff came to know of the relationship with C around August 2013 while entering into a relationship with C from December 2012, the Defendant came to know of the relationship with C. The Defendant committed the tort of this case after becoming aware of the above misconduct, and the Defendant committed the tort of this case. At the time, the Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation to the effect that “the Plaintiff would not meet with C twice again,” but was contacted with C even around May 2014. Ultimately, the Defendant was confused with C on June 19, 2014, and the Defendant caused the failure of the marriage between the Defendant and C due to the Plaintiff’s wrongful act.