beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the court of first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion added or emphasized in the trial. As such, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Unlike the Criminal Act, the plaintiff asserts that the civil liability for tort due to defamation is established even if there is no performance, and that the defendant's defamation act of this case does not constitute grounds for excluding illegality.
The statement of evidence No. 7 alone is insufficient to recognize the specific contents of the statement made by the Defendant to the Director of the “Ghanwon” with respect to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s statement that may be defamation against the Plaintiff was not specified in detail.
Even if there is room for defamation against the plaintiff, the defendant appears to have been necessary to explain the reason why the defendant refused to guarantee the payment of medical expenses as an insurance company's employee. The defendant made a statement about the plaintiff only to the president of "Ghanwon" who cannot divulge information about the plaintiff under the Medical Service Act. The defendant did not appear to have made a statement with the intent to impair the plaintiff's reputation, in the case where there is possibility of insurance fraud, it appears to be for the public interest to take measures to prevent damage to the whole insured in the event of a possibility of insurance fraud, and explain the necessary measures. The plaintiff was suspected of intentionally causing multiple traffic accidents with relatives and receiving insurance money, and was prosecuted as a suspicion of fraud after the defendant made a police investigation. The defendant's statement appears to have a considerable reason to believe the possibility of insurance fraud by the plaintiff.