logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.05.21 2018나209899
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, Articles 1 and 2 of the Disposition against Plaintiff A, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded in the trial of the trial.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and evidence Nos. 4-1, and Gap evidence Nos. 4-2, and there are no counter-proofs otherwise.

Plaintiff

A and the defendant are E University Pianos and the same questions.

나. 피고는 2017. 9. 9. 1:13경 휴대전화기를 이용하여 원고의 모친인 B, E대학교 동문인 F, G, H, I, J을 초대해 K 단체 대화방을 만든 다음, 원고 A가 남자들과 같이 있는 사진과 동영상을 올리면서 “미국에선 저 분이랑 자고, 유럽에선 얘랑 잤는데 한국에는 없는 사이즈라면서 최고의 밤이엇다구 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ”라는 글을 올렸다

(hereinafter referred to as “instant publication”). C.

Plaintiff

As a result of a complaint filed by A on October 19, 2017 against the Defendant for defamation, the Defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 4 million for the crime that publicly damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation by means of the publication of this case, which is a false content, with the High Government District Court Decision 2017Kadan3780, Feb. 8, 2018. The said judgment became final and conclusive on February 20, 2018 without filing an appeal by the Defendant.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The defendant's liability for damages is established as to the plaintiff's claim. (1) The defendant damaged the plaintiff's reputation by the publication of this case, and infringed the plaintiff's privacy, personality right, and portrait right, and thus the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff's damage. (b) The defendant is not liable for tort since the article of this case is true, but the defendant's evidence submitted by the defendant alone cannot be recognized as a circumstance that can reverse the judgment of facts established in the criminal judgment. Even if the article of this case is factually written, there is no change that the plaintiff's reputation is damaged and that the plaintiff's privacy, personality right, and portrait right has been infringed. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

(ii).

arrow