beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.03 2018나75740

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 6, 2016, the Plaintiff operated the F Language Institute (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Institute”) in D’s shopping districts located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, and the Defendants were police officers upon receipt of a report by the JJ 112, who operated the International Music Institute (hereinafter “ Music Institute”) in the said shopping districts G through H on February 6, 2016.

B. On February 6, 2017, the Defendants received a report from J 112 and called out. The Plaintiff and J asserted that Defendant B confirmed the Plaintiff’s personal information in the process of hearing the Plaintiff’s statement from the Plaintiff, and that the Defendants would be able to directly find out criminal issues in a case where the Plaintiff’s noise was found, and that it would be desirable to resolve it by filing a civil petition with the Gu office, etc.

C. After the completion of the above case, the Defendants stated in the treatment list that “J reported the Plaintiff’s lessons to the students who found the Plaintiff as a music private teaching institute and received lessons, which interfered with the Plaintiff’s lessons, and the police dispatched to J notified the Plaintiff of the reporting procedure at the time of its recurrence, and consulted the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff may be subject to criminal punishment if the Plaintiff continued to engage in the same activity.”

On June 5, 2017, the Plaintiff spreads false information against J on June 5, 2017 that, from around April 2013 to around 2017, the J lent the space of the Piano and the teaching room of the music private teaching institute to the Plaintiff for a fee, and caused mental pain to the Plaintiff, while teaching the music private teaching institute, and the noise was excessive, thereby undermining the efficiency in the Plaintiff’s development of the learning program. From May 2014, the Plaintiff spreads false information that the Plaintiff sent the lawsuit and the police for the remaining pian noise of the Pianos who suffered excessive damage. On February 6, 2017, the Plaintiff reported false information to the police and stated false information to the Defendants.