손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The plaintiff's argument that the court of first instance might bring about the grounds of appeal from the court of first instance as follows. The reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment in accordance with the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable to cite it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Judgment of the court and investigation agency for loss of transportation cost of KRW 1,00,000 and actual income of KRW 3,000,000 during the above-mentioned period (=10,000 per day x 30 days) and damages equivalent to KRW 34,00,000,00 for mental distress, which are the sum of KRW 30,000 per day x 30,000,000 for mental distress, the defendant shall compensate for loss of KRW 10,00,00 for part of the plaintiff.]
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the confession between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was established on the facts raised by the Plaintiff and the Defendant based on the Defendant’s entry in the Defendant’s preparatory document as of December 12, 2016 and the statement as of December 13, 2016 at the hearing date.
B. We examine the judgment, the defendant: (a) memorys the plaintiff's phone call to the defendant; and (b) merely stated that "the word "" and the case number "" in the pending pending before the Supreme Court, and ordered the employee to identify the case number. Since the court later stated that the defendant's preparatory brief dated December 12, 2016, stating ", was made on the date of pleading on December 13, 2016, and it is difficult to view that the defendant made a statement consistent with the plaintiff's statement, and since the defendant continued to assert that there was no perjury in the case of defamation against the plaintiff, the defendant has been asserted that there was no perjury.