beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.10.28 2016나2969

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim that has been changed in exchange at the trial, shall be changed as follows:

Reasons

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the statement of the first instance court's decision in addition to the following parts, since the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the statement of the first instance court's decision in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be mard;

B. 1) Scope of liability for damages) 1) Position expenses and the amount of lawsuit expenses for delivery fees can be reimbursed after the final judgment became final and conclusive through the procedure for determination of the amount of lawsuit expenses under the provisions of the Costs of Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, there is no benefit to seek compensation as separate positive damages.

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2200 delivered on June 9, 1987). Therefore, the part seeking payment of the stamp fee and service fee totaling KRW 625,235 in the instant lawsuit and its delay damages is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

B) The written statements in Gap evidence Nos. 12 through 15 of the transcript Nos. 12 through 15 are not enough to recognize that the plaintiff's oral treatment expenses, transportation expenses, and recording record of the plaintiff's assertion were damages caused by the defendant's defamation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for the defendant's emotional distress to the plaintiff by damaging the plaintiff's honor. The amount is determined as KRW 1,50,00,00 in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the oral proceedings of this case, including the contents and the degree of the defendant's statement recognized earlier, the defendant's statement was made, the circumstances after the defendant discovered that he stolen the article No. 12 to E (the time when the defendant returned the letter of loss, the contents with the company, and the time when the certificate of loss was returned to the plaintiff).

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant seeks to the Plaintiff as the damages for the tort amounting to KRW 1,500,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s claim after the date of tort.