손해배상(기)
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, and F are executives and employees of Plaintiff G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd”). The Defendant is from September 1, 2014 to December 5 of the same year, and from February 10, 2015 to February 10, 2015.
4. Until 25.25. A person who was an employee of the Plaintiff Company.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading
2. Determination as to the claims of plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, and F
A. The Defendant asserted that Plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) made a non-discriminatory recording of the Plaintiff’s conversation using a smartphone recording function. On February 16, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the Plaintiffs’ work by reading out the rules of employment a day without work at the Plaintiff Company, and by insulting and threatening Plaintiff D, A, etc... In that sense, the Defendant constituted tort against the Plaintiffs, and thus, the Defendant should pay 3,00,000 consolation money to each of the Plaintiffs.
B. 1) Determination 1) The Defendant’s recording of a conversation between itself and the Plaintiffs, or disclosing the fact that the Defendant made a recording on the front of the Plaintiffs’ cell phone and disclosing the fact to the public and making a recording on the front of the Plaintiffs’ mobile phone, cannot be deemed to constitute a violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act or a tort against the Plaintiffs. According to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit inasmuch as it is found that the Plaintiffs issued a disposition that the Plaintiffs were suspected of having committed a criminal complaint against the Defendant for this reason. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs’ statement and image of the evidence No. 15 through No. 17, and No. 27 of the judgment on interference with business were insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant obstructed, insulting, or threatened the Plaintiffs’ business
3. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff Company
A. The plaintiff company's assertion of the plaintiff company employed the defendant on the resume that the defendant made a false statement in his career, and the defendant.