logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.02 2017나37186
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

The reasoning of the court's reasoning of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition and modification as follows. Thus, this case is quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 9 additionally submitted by the plaintiff at the trial, it is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion). The plaintiff's statement of No. 3 at the lower end of the judgment of the first instance as "No. 7, No. 3 and No. 6" at the third bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance.

A criminal complaint was filed to the effect that the Plaintiff had damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation by inserting a false article stating that “the Plaintiff would throw away from Defendant B,” and Defendant B would have “the head of the team at the time when D Office was D Office” to the E press on January 21, 2016, based on the fact that there was a false article that “the Plaintiff had not taken place even at the time of D Office.” However, the prosecutor added a criminal complaint to the effect that he had damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation by taking into account the contents of other media companies’ articles, the Plaintiff’s filing of civil petitions and inquiries against Seoul Government, the details of the Plaintiff’s request for punishment against the public official in charge, the fact that the public official in charge was requested for punishment, the statement of witness, etc. among the ports, there was a possibility that the Plaintiff would have expressed that “the Plaintiff would be at a disadvantage to the status of the public official in charge of I,” and that the article was related to public interest and that there was no disposition of non-prosecution on the ground that it was considered that public interest.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow