위자료
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Nonparty D’s summary of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is the Plaintiff’s partner and Plaintiff B’s children. Despite having purchased workplace medical insurance from around August 2012, 2012, Nonparty D received a wrong notification from the Deputy Governor of the Health Insurance Corporation to pay the insurance premium as a beneficiary of the regional medical insurance around March 2013.
Accordingly, Plaintiff B visited the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission to raise an objection, and sought from the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission the statement that Defendant F, a person in charge of the affairs of the Seocheon-gu Office E and its affiliated with the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, should be resolved, and around March 26, 2013, Plaintiff B visited the Seocheon-gu Office E and its office.
However, as the Plaintiff B notified the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission of the request to resolve the health insurance premium problem, the Defendant F, etc. notified the Plaintiff B that he should pay the health insurance premium without any explanation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff B directly asked the reasons for the request to the Defendant C, who is the team leader E and the team leader, and Defendant G, who is the E and the public official belonging to the Party E, in front of the Plaintiff B, committed collective assault to the extent that it may threaten the life of the Plaintiff B by putting the Plaintiff’s shoulder in combination with the Defendants, making it difficult for the Defendants to cover up the Plaintiff B’s shoulder and dupe their body.
After that, although the plaintiffs requested the defendants to submit CCTV images which had taken the situation at the time, they cannot display them to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs' legitimate rights were infringed upon by abusing their official authority as a public official by asserting that it was or was already discarded, and instead, the CCTV images were fabricated, and the plaintiffs B were posted as the perpetrator.
In addition, the Defendants damaged the honor of the Plaintiffs by pointing out false facts, such as falsely preparing and sending official documents requesting data on civil petitions for grievances filed by the Plaintiff A to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission.
Therefore, the above tort by the Defendants is attributable to the tort.