손해배상
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.
2. This is due to the extension of claims for the costs of appeal.
1. Basic facts
A. At around C09:30, the Defendant, on the Internet website bulletin, made up and posted a comments on the items of “D” written by the Plaintiff, stating that “A shall be the impule. . Do. Do. Do. Do.”
B. Accordingly, on December 19, 201, the Defendant was indicted for committing a crime that insults the Plaintiff by posting the above comments on the Internet website bulletin, and was notified of a summary order of KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000 won by Sung-nam Branch of Suwon District Court, Sung-nam Branch of 201, and the said summary order became final and conclusive as it is.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is responsible for suffering from mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort in money, since it is recognized in light of the empirical rule that the defendant used language that could undermine the social reputation on the bulletin board of the Internet site where many unspecified people access, and that the plaintiff was suffering from mental suffering.
Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the health team, the Plaintiff first posted comments on the Internet, the contents of the comments posted by the Plaintiff, the contents and method of expression of comments posted by the Defendant on the Internet, the circumstances in which the Defendant made comments on the comments, and the result of the relevant criminal case, etc., it is reasonable to determine consolation money to the extent of KRW 300,000,000.
3. In conclusion, the defendant, as the plaintiff's petition for consolation money of KRW 300,00 and the plaintiff's petition for consolation money after the date of tort, was served on March 12, 2015, which is the following day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the duty to perform until May 20, 2015, which is stipulated in the Civil Act.