1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion stated false facts that the Plaintiff embezzled the construction cost for the purpose of not paying additional construction cost, and published false facts to the villagers that the Plaintiff embezzled the construction cost, thereby impairing the Plaintiff’s honor.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 21 million to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 10, the fact that the Defendant filed a complaint with the Plaintiff to the effect that “the Plaintiff embezzled the construction cost,” but was subject to a disposition that was suspected of being taken by the prosecutor of the office of the competent branch office of Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office.

B. However, even if the complainant was subject to an investigation due to the suspected fact that the complainant filed a complaint and received a disposition of non-guilty suspicion, the complainant’s act cannot be readily concluded as tort unless it is based on intention or gross negligence to the extent that the complaint is deemed abuse of right.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 93Da29556 Decided January 25, 1994; 2005Da29481 Decided April 28, 2006; 2006Da46360 Decided April 12, 2007, etc.).

In light of the above facts, it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant's complaint is an intentional act or gross negligence to the extent that it can be recognized as an abuse of the right to file a complaint, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently. In light of the above, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's complaint is an abuse of the right to file a complaint, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it as an abuse of the right to file a complaint.

In relation to defamation, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient.