1. From December 4, 2015 to March 7, 2017, the Defendant’s KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were members of the Sungnam City Council.

B. Around that time, there was a problem raising that the Defendant made a male-centered speech in the audit of administrative affairs of the Seongbuk-gu Office in November 30, 2015, Sungnam-si, 2015, and that there was a circumstance that he received an order from the Chairperson among the attempts to leave the military affairs audit of the Korea Agency on December 1, 2015.

C. On the other hand, on December 4, 2015, the E reporter of the athletic broadcast had an interview with the Defendant in order to find out the above circumstances, and at this time, the Defendant recorded the Plaintiff’s statement without the Defendant’s consent, stating that “I first see a woman, who is going to do so, and is going to do so with a snick, such as a snick, snick, which is covered with a dum tank.” The E reporter recorded the above statement without obtaining the Defendant’s consent.

On the other hand, on December 8, 2015, the Plaintiff heard the above recording from the E reporter during the meeting of the Sungnam-si Council and made an objection to the Defendant, and this situation was a situation in which the members of the Si Council and the employees of the Secretariat could be known.

E. After December 10, 2015, G of F and H reporters made a report to the effect that the Defendant made the Plaintiff’s remarks to the effect that “the Defendant took a shot snick politics.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2 through 3, 5 through 9, Eul's 5 and 6 (including paper numbers), witness G's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition 1), the Defendant’s speaking to the effect that “snick politics” was made by itself to the effect that it constitutes tort against the Plaintiff’s personality right and that the Plaintiff was suffering from mental suffering. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff. As to this point, the Defendant does not constitute defamation because the above speaking is private dialogue not premised on the report, or because it does not have a public performance.