1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who was in charge of the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives in Ysan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from November 2007 to May 201. The Defendant is a person elected as the Dong representative of 102 apartment buildings of this case on September 201.

B. On September 27, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million from the Jeonju District Court Decision 2012 High Court Decision 201Da4899 on the following facts constituting a crime. On September 27, 2012, the Defendant filed a request for formal trial with the said court under the above court Order 2012 High Court Decision 936.

1) Around April 5, 2011, the Defendant did not have any fact that the Plaintiff received money at the time of the Plaintiff’s work as the president of the occupants’ representative. There was no false construction of the PPP. There was no fact that two employees had been employed and the head and employees did not take personnel management measures in mind. Although there was no fact that the PPP had reported money on the apartment in our apartment, the Defendant would inform the front of the residents of the personnel management measures and the middle omission with the mind of the head and the employees while making employment and management of two employees who had reported damage to our apartment. The Defendant damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by attaching printed materials prepared “102 Dong B” in December 5, 2011.

9. Each apartment management office of this case, around 19:30, broadcasted the resident representative selection support election with the contents same as the above 1.5 households, thereby damaging the Plaintiff’s reputation by openly pointing out false facts by openly pointing out the Plaintiff’s reputation. 3) The Defendant around December 10, 2011, on the bulletin board of the 34 entrance of the apartment of this case around December 10, 201, did not have the Plaintiff deducted the winning money of the provisional disposition and the Skbrode promotion fund of the instant apartment of this case, and the Plaintiff did not have any fact that 50,000 won of the stenography and recorded a record with respect to the paint, even though it did not have any fact that the stenographic paper was recorded, “the resident thickness.”