1. The Defendant’s KRW 500,000 as well as its annual rate from November 5, 2010 to July 22, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion around November 5, 2010, the defendant presented to the above apartment 204-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon, a document stating that the plaintiff, who is the president of the apartment council of occupants' representatives, proposed a proposal to amend the management rules on October 21, 2010, and submitted to the council of occupants' representatives for each Dong and election commission only several important matters, such as personnel and allowances, to the above apartment 204 residents by signing in the non-Confidence agreement of the representative of the Dong 204, thereby impairing the plaintiff's reputation by pointing out false facts, and thereby causing mental damage to the plaintiff.

The defendant filed a complaint with the same content on several occasions under Daejeon District Office No. 2009 type No. 26009, Public Prosecutor's Office No. 2012 type No. 28649, and Public Prosecutor's Office No. 2013 type No. 19725, and the plaintiff suffered mental damage.

Therefore, the plaintiff seeks to pay as consolation money 21,000,000 won and damages for delay to the defendant.

B. (1) In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4, 9, and Eul's evidence No. 37 as to the assertion of tort caused by defamation, the defendant was the Dong representative of Seo-gu Daejeon apartment. In relation to the council of occupants' representatives opened on October 21, 2010, the plaintiff, who was the president of the council of occupants' representatives, distributed meeting data on the proposal for the amendment of the management rules in advance to Dong representative of the defendant et al., the above council of occupants' representatives, including the defendant et al., who attended the council of occupants' representatives, heard about five minutes of the explanation on the proposal for the amendment of the management rules, and first deliberated and decided on only the part to be supplemented among the contents of the standard of the amendment management rules received from the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon Office, and reported it to the Seo-gu Office after the plaintiff's proposal, it is an alternative to supplement the management rules to comply with the above amendment management rules.