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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are workplace pay that they have worked in the life insurance of ING.

B. Although the Defendant did not have a locked with the Plaintiff, the Defendant told the workplace rent around February 201 and June 18, 2014 that “the Plaintiff was engaged in insurance business on his/her own body, and the Defendant was locked with the Defendant.”

On May 14, 2015, the Defendant was prosecuted as defamation and sentenced to a fine of three million won by the Suwon District Court (U.S. District Court 2015Ma344). On the other hand, on July 31, 2015, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of suspension of business for one month on the ground that the Defendant committed verbal sexual harassment within the workplace from JG life insurance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant injured the plaintiff's honor and infringed the plaintiff's personality right.

As such, the plaintiff is obligated to pay a monetary reward for mental suffering caused by the above illegal act.

Furthermore, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant shall be determined at KRW 3 million in light of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as health class, relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the content and method of defamation committed by the defendant, the frequency, and the degree of damage inflicted on the plaintiff.

B. On November 26, 2014, the Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff did not raise any civil or criminal objection after preparing a performance agreement with the Defendant on November 26, 2014. The Defendant asserts that the instant claim is contrary to the foregoing agreement.

However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff agreed not to raise a civil or criminal objection with respect to the Defendant’s defamation act, and thus, it is based on the Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2032675, which the Defendant submitted.