(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.11.23 2012노3288

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.11.23 2012노3288

업무방해등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The costs of the trial are assessed against the defendants.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) received not only the lessee Q and S’s name but also the decision of temporary injunction for the transfer of the building, Q and S neglected the court’s decision and sublet the building to the victims of this case without permission.

Accordingly, C instructed the victims to take the measures of cutting-down water while demanding the presentation of the building name, but the victims failed to comply with the request, which eventually led to the Defendants who received C’s instructions.

In light of the circumstances of the instant case, the instant act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, considering the fact that there was no other appropriate method other than the act of cutting-down water, that prior notice was given to the victims regarding the measures of cutting-out water, and the circumstances leading to the measures of cutting-out water.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendants did not think of their acts as illegal and under the company’s instruction, Defendant B was the primary offender, Defendant A was also without the same criminal record, and Defendant B was against the mistake, the sentence imposed by the court below (Defendant A: fine of 2.5 million won, and fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to what act does not violate the social norms and the illegality is excluded should be determined on an individual basis, based on specific circumstances. To recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act.

Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8074 Decided April 27, 2006

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2012.09.14 2012노1002

-창원지방법원 2014.10.15 2014노1309

-창원지방법원 2013.01.25 2011노2562

-인천지방법원 2014.06.13 2013노3796

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.26 2014노1419