1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 7,00,000, KRW 5,000,000 for each of the said money, and each of the said money from January 23, 2019 to January 20, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A was a F preliminary candidate recommended by G party in the E election conducted on the D date (hereinafter “instant election”). Plaintiff B was the spouse of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant was the F preliminary candidate (former F) of the instant election. The Defendant was the H’s punishment in the instant election.

B. As a result of the instant election, Plaintiff A obtained 10,533 votes (40.91%) and H obtained 11,382 votes (44.21% of the gains), and H was elected as F.

C. On September 21, 2018, the Defendant was prosecuted for facts constituting a crime listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant tort”) and was sentenced to a suspended sentence (No. 2018 Goju District Court Branch Decision 2018Dahap22).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, 14 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs Gap asserted that support was set at one different level during the election campaign period of this case, but the support rate of the defendant's tort of this case fell rapidly, and eventually fell from the election of this case.

The Plaintiffs received not only mental suffering but also serious mental suffering due to the abortion due to the tort of this case by itself.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money to the plaintiffs for mental distress caused by the tort of this case.

3. Determination

A. We first examine whether to recognize the duty to pay consolation money due to the abortion, and first examine the part of the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant committed the tort of this case and thereby caused mental damage.

The facts that the defendant committed the tort of this case and that the defendant was convicted due to this, are as seen earlier.

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and the entire purport of the arguments, ① as a result of the questionnaire survey on the candidates most suitable among five persons set forth in F that was conducted on December 18, 2017, the fact that the survey was conducted on the first five persons set forth in I (F at that time), Plaintiff A8.9%, and H 16.7%, and ② on April 6, 2018 to August 8, 2018.