1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Since January 7, 2017, the Plaintiff is a dentist who operates the “D Dental” located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and has been treating the Defendant with an artificial bones transplanting and transplanting eggs.

However, on August 19, 2017, the plaintiff confirmed that the artificial bones that was transplanted to the defendant was not properly observed.

B. On August 19, 2017, the Defendant: (a) heard an explanation from the Plaintiff on the treatment process as seen above; (b) took a public bath to the Plaintiff on an opportunity for the Plaintiff to listen to a number of patients whose names are unknown and nurses working therein; and (c) took a public bath for the Plaintiff to “free spaws, spads without any circumstances”.

C. As to the above insult, the Defendant was notified of a summary order of KRW 500,000,000 as Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branch Decision 2017 High Court Branch Decision 20188, and the Defendant claimed formal trial against it. However, on March 30, 2018, the Sungwon District Court rendered a fine of KRW 300,000 against the Defendant’s above insult (Supreme Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 201Da1711), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 7, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 3 evidence (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment [the scope of the judgment of this court] at the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought a payment of KRW 3 million for business losses and KRW 2 million for consolation money due to the Defendant’s insult. The first instance court accepted only KRW 500,000 among them, and dismissed the remainder of the claim.

In response, the defendant only appealed against the above cited part, so this Court's judgment is limited to the above cited claim for consolation money.

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that the defendant recognized that the defendant committed an insulting tort against the plaintiff and that the plaintiff suffered a considerable mental suffering.