1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1,000,000 for each of the Plaintiff A, D, C, and E; and (b) KRW 3,00,000 for each of the said money to Plaintiff B and each of the said money.

1. Recognizing the facts, Plaintiff A, D, C, and E were members of the council of occupants' representatives as the Dong-gu G Apartment-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant apartment”)’s representatives, and Plaintiff B was working as the head of the management office of the instant apartment, and the Defendant is a person residing in the instant apartment.

At around 20:00 on August 19, 2016, the Defendant stated to the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case that “at least 1:00, the Defendant stated that “at least 3:00,000 the Plaintiffs and several people are able to carry out pipinging construction on the world,” and that “at least 5:00,000 people were able to do so.” The Defendant said that “at least 1:00,000 people were able to do so.”

In addition, at around 07:30 on August 22, 2016, the Defendant stated that “the management office and several representatives of the Dong were drinking KRW 50 million while performing the pipeline construction work” to H under cleaning before the 505 apartment building of this case, and around 10:50 on the same day, the Defendant stated that “the head of the management office and the representative of the Dong in charge of the pipeline construction were drinking KRW 50 million to other occupants from the stairs of 502 6th floor,” and that “the head of the management office and the representative of the Dong in charge of the pipeline construction were drinking KRW 50 million.”

The Defendant was prosecuted with the charge of impairing the reputation of the Plaintiffs by pointing out false facts as to the above acts, and received a summary order of a fine of 2 million won on February 2, 2017 (Seoul District Court High Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 9705).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 6, 42, 44, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (i) The Defendant’s tort Defendant’s tort stated that Plaintiff B and Plaintiff A, the managing director of the apartment of this case, et al. were engaged in rebates or embezzlement while performing pipinging the apartment of this case. However, this was not true, and the Plaintiff was not involved.