손해배상(기)
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the head of a security team at the place of business of a D Research Complex, which is a corporation affiliated with Korea Asset Management Corporation, and the Defendant is in office as an electrical team engineer at the same place of business.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were non-regular workers belonging to service companies, the Korea Asset Management Corporation of which is the Korea Asset Management Corporation. On December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were transferred to regular workers belonging to the said C Facility Management Corporation.
(c)
In the process of the above regular conversion, the defendant was demoted from the team leader to the article, and there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant as to ①, ③, ⑤ defamation caused by a speech, and ④ defamation caused by a speech, and ④ insult caused by a speech, among the public prosecutor of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, on September 30, 2019; ③ the statement was made by a statement of specific facts.
It cannot be seen, and five speakings are difficult to be recognized as the defendant's remarks, and ④ speakings were disposed of as having no suspicion (insufficient evidence) against the defendant on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize the possibility of dissemination.
(d)
On the other hand, the Defendant requested the audit office of the Korea Asset Management Corporation to audit the Plaintiff’s unfair solicitation for personnel intervention, and as a result of the investigation, there was suspicion of the Plaintiff’s improper solicitation for personnel intervention.
The conclusion was that “not verifiable points have been confirmed.”
[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, part of the evidence No. 1
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted that liability for damages was established cannot be said to have been made by the Defendant to the members of the workplace in a public place by publicly alleging false facts about the Plaintiff, but among them, the Plaintiff violated the Plaintiff’s honor or personal rights by making a new statement in the attached Form [the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim]. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, and thus, the Defendant paid consolation money to the Plaintiff.