1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. On June 13, 2017, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of all plaintiffs on the part of the defendant by serving a copy of the complaint and other documents related to the lawsuit by public notice, and rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant on June 13, 2017. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice. On July 19, 2017, the defendant filed an application for perusal or duplication of records, etc. with the court of first instance at the court of first instance and became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice at that time, and the fact that the defendant filed the instant appeal on July 20, 2017 is obvious or obvious in the record.

Thus, the defendant was unable to comply with the appeal period because he was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself, and the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from the time the defendant became aware that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service by public notice was lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was unable to make a statement any more than 50,000 won of consolation money, considering the Defendant’s words “Sacheon-gu, Mancheon-gu, MaG Human Resources Development Institute,” among the Do which the Plaintiff made a statement at the special meeting of the Seoul Yongsan-gu DD community credit cooperatives held in the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, YG Human Resources Development Institute room, and caused mental damage. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay consolation money in KRW 500,00 to the Plaintiff.

B. In determining a tort, the burden of proving the existence of the harmful act by intention or negligence and the causal relationship between the act and the occurrence of the loss lies on the claimant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92272 Decided March 25, 2010, etc.). In the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that, in light of the health team, Eul 2-1 through 6, and testimony of witness E of the party trial, the testimony of witness F of the party trial alone, the Defendant made the statement that the Defendant was “Gman damage, damage, and franc,” and it is different.