Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount of additional payment shall be revoked.

Plaintiff’s assertion

Since the defendant committed a tort, such as insulting the plaintiff, the defendant must pay 4 million won consolation money to the plaintiff as compensation for the plaintiff's mental damage.

Judgment

A. The following facts may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7-2, 3, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 7, 11 through 18:

1) On April 3, 2018, the Defendant: (a) was a resident of Daegu Jung-gu apartment, and the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the said apartment parking lot was impregnating the management office; and (b) demanded the Plaintiff, a manager of the said apartment building, to present the parking lot CCTV to the Plaintiff; (c) however, the Plaintiff refused to display it at will in accordance with the Personal Information Protection Act.

2) Since then, the Defendant continuously raised an issue regarding the Plaintiff’s work process to the persons and residents of the said apartment complex’s representative meeting, and filed a civil petition with the Gu office among Daegu-gu which is the competent supervisory authority.

3) On October 15, 2018, the Defendant criticizes the Plaintiff who did not show CCTV at the seat of the resident representative and the resident, holding a meeting held in the meeting room in the management office around 19:00 on October 15, 2018, and criticizes the Plaintiff who was not showing CCTV at the seat of the resident representative and the resident; and

In addition, I expressed the desire to “I am gue, I am gue,” which is called “I am.”

As seen above, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspended sentence (300,000 won) from the Daegu District Court (2019 High Court Decision 1013) to January 22, 2020 with respect to the act of openly insulting the Plaintiff.

4) On the other hand, the occupant representative meeting of the above apartment was entrusted with the apartment management affairs to the Dispute Resolution D, and the plaintiff concluded a labor contract with the Dispute Resolution D and worked as the managing director of the above apartment.

From December 2, 2018 to January 2019, the defendant continuously requested the plaintiff to replace the plaintiff, and the plaintiff to resign the plaintiff around February 8, 2019.

(b) above;