1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The occurrence and scope of the liability for damages incurred by the Defendant to openly insult the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff “E” store located on June 14, 2016 in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D’s 1st floor located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (Seoul Special Metropolitan City), “E” had expressed a bath to the Plaintiff, such as the match of this opening year, the width, the two years, the same year, the same year, the previous year, the previous year, the two years, the previous years, the previous years, the previous years, the previous years, the previous years, and the young children,” and the fact that the Plaintiff received medical treatment at the hospital and the medical expenses incurred in KRW 29,720 may be acknowledged by the statement in the evidence No. 1 and No. 3, and the Plaintiff suffered a considerable mental pain due to the above tort. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to do so in money.

In addition, since the defendant received hospital treatment due to the defendant's act, it is obligated to pay 29,720 won, a considerable damage to medical expenses.

Furthermore, in light of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case including the following: (a) the amount of consolation money; (b) the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; (c) the background of this case; (d) the degree of insult; and (e) the degree of criminal punishment that the Defendant received, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that the amount of KRW 100,00 won related to the receipt of a stenographic company is damage. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the above amount was a damage in proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s tort, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit. Accordingly, with respect to the Plaintiff, as to KRW 729,720 and KRW 300,000,000 from August 20, 2016 to September 29, 2016, which is the day following the date on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the Defendant, as sought by the Plaintiff, that the Defendant raised disputes as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation from August 20, 2016 to September 29, 2016, which is the date when the copy of the complaint was served.