1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are employees of D Co., Ltd.

B. The Defendants, in the presence of D articles around December 2017, resisted against the Plaintiff’s accusation of the violation of the D Passenger Transport Service Act to Busan Viewing Busan, and received a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a charge of patent insult against the Plaintiff during a dispute.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants asserted as the Plaintiff’s executives of the E-Trade Union are the Defendants’ tort committed by the Defendants, which is of a malicious nature as a collective element against the internal complainants. The Plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering, such as having undergone brain scamcaming surgery due to the above tort, and thus, the Defendants are obliged to pay 3 million won as consolation money to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering due to the insult of the defendants. Thus, the defendants are obliged to compensate for the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

B. Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the health team, the background and form of the offense of insult, the severity of damage suffered by the Plaintiff, and the degree of criminal punishment, as to the amount of consolation money, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff by Defendant B, and the consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff by Defendant C, as KRW 70,000

[Plaintiff’s assertion that consolation money as stated in the purport of the claim should be paid. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants’ insulting act was committed as a collective element, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Moreover, it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the Defendants’ tort and the fact that the Plaintiff received cerebral connection treatment by itself on the sole basis of each description of evidence Nos. 3 through 7 (including paper numbers).

Therefore, it is true.