1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.

At around 14:00 on January 19, 2016, the Defendant: (a) listened to the Plaintiff’s phrase “ice mining force” from the Plaintiff, an employee of the same office, at D real estate consulting office located on the seventh floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building, and (b) provided the Plaintiff with a summary order of KRW 500,00,00,000 at the Seoul Central District Court, on the ground of the fact that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with the above abusive language on March 11, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the occurrence and scope of the liability for damages of witness E of the party concerned, according to the facts as seen earlier, the defendant committed a tort that infringes on the plaintiff's personality right by insulting the plaintiff, such as taking a bath, etc.

Since it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering, the defendant is liable to compensate for the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances indicated in the records of this case, such as the health team, the content and degree of an insulting act, the degree of mental suffering that the Plaintiff was inflicted by the Defendant’s insulting act, the background leading up to the Defendant’s insult to the Plaintiff, the relationship between the original Defendant and the Defendant, and the case of a similar case in the relevant criminal judgment, etc. As to the amount of consolation money that the Defendant is liable for compensation, it is reasonable to determine consolation money for mental suffering caused by the Defendant’s insulting act as KRW 1,00,00

Therefore, the defendant's lawsuit promotion, etc. is about 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 19, 2016, which is the date of the judgment of this court, to April 18, 2019, and the next day to the date of full payment, where the defendant's dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation.