1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Plaintiff’s assertion

The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the consolation money of KRW 20,000,000 due to defamation and the damages for delay from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is the president of the Gu Seoul apartment (212 households; hereinafter “instant apartment”) from July 23, 2013 to March 31, 2016, and the Defendant was each responsible for the audit of the instant apartment around that time.

D Around February 5, 2015, the accounting firm prepared and submitted an audit report to the effect that “it is not found that the accounting firm has seriously violated the provisions on accounting” concerning the management expenses, etc. of the instant apartment.

Around February 28, 2015, the Defendant broadcasted that the Plaintiff embezzled public funds with the Director of the Management Office, using the broadcast equipment in the apartment of this case.

On October 2015, the Defendant explained that the Plaintiff embezzled various expenses, including apartment management expenses, to 20 residents of the apartment of this case under the pretext of receiving written consent from the residents on the withdrawal of the head of the autonomous council, even though there was no embezzlement by the Plaintiff in early October 2015.

On November 9, 2016, the Defendant visited 169 households in the apartment of this case and received a written consent of criminal complaint against the Plaintiff, and explained that “the Plaintiff embezzled various expenses, including the management expenses of the apartment.”

On November 21, 2016, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Police Station of the Daegu District Court to the effect that the Plaintiff would be punished for occupational breach of trust, etc. On November 21, 2016. On June 30, 2017, the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch issued a disposition of no suspicion of occupational breach of trust against the Plaintiff, occupational breach of trust against the Plaintiff, forgery of private documents, and occurrence of the same event (Evidence of Evidence No. 3977, 2017).

On September 5, 2017, the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-cheon Branch of the defendant LD on September 5, 2017

As described in the subsection, the patent falsity is publicly known.