손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Facts of recognition
On May 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) around May 2013, the Plaintiff d’s character indicating Internet community “C”, i.e., “D”; (b) carried the character and promoted the character.
피고는 2013. 5. 17. 23:05경 인터넷 포털 다음(DAUM) 사이트 ‘E' 카페에 접속하여 ’F‘ 게시판에서 “G”라는 제목으로 원고가 D 캐릭터 인형 옷을 입고 있는 사진 3장이 담긴 게시글을 보고 ’H‘라는 닉네임으로 “고소할테면 해보던가 ㅋㅋ 자기가 사진 올리라고 했다며 그리 당당하다며 지가 올리래서 올렸더니 고소한다 지랄하지말구 ㅎㅎ응 ”라는 댓글을 작성하였다.
On June 30, 2014, the defendant reported the plaintiff's photograph on the Internet bulletin board at the Goyang Branch Office of the Government's High Prosecutors' Office.
A disposition of suspension of indictment was taken on the facts constituting the offense of insulting the plaintiff by making comments on the comments as mentioned in paragraph (1).
[Grounds for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 and 15-3 of the evidence Nos. 15-3, and the facts of the above recognition as to the grounds for the claim of the whole pleadings, the defendant, after the Internet portal (DAUM) bulletin board, used a language that enables multiple unspecified persons to confirm the contents of the writing, thereby causing mental pain to the plaintiff by engaging in a tort of openly insulting and insulting the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff as compensation for damages.
Furthermore, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant shall be determined as KRW 700,000 in consideration of the various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case, such as the health stand, the content and circumstances of comments made by the defendant, etc.
Therefore, from May 17, 2013, which was the date of tort, the Defendant’s damages amounting to KRW 700,000, to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 31, 2016, the date of the first instance judgment, which was reasonable for the Defendant’s dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation.