logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.12.24 2014나11007
손해배상(기)
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

In the lawsuit of this case.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the Plaintiff, since the application for a provisional disposition to suspend the performance of their duties against the Plaintiff and the costs of lawsuit incurred due to the first instance court and the trial court are KRW 1,736,700.

(2) The Defendants spread false information to the effect that the Plaintiff was not a resident who illegally resided in the Republic of Korea, thereby making the Plaintiff’s children transferred to Seoul. As a result, 2,50,000 won, such as monthly and director expenses, etc. were required, so the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 12,00,000 won to the Plaintiff for the above money and mental damage.

2. The Defendants’ determination on the main defense of this case is that the Plaintiff’s claim for trial costs can be repaid through the procedure for determination of the amount of litigation costs, and that there is no interest in the lawsuit.

On the other hand, the amount of litigation costs spent as the litigation costs can be repaid through the procedure for determining the amount of litigation costs under the provisions of the Costs of Civil Procedure Act after the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and there is no benefit to seek compensation by deeming it as a separate and affirmative damage (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577, May 12, 2000). Of the lawsuit of this case, the part claiming litigation costs in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit to the lawsuit.

3. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants had undermined the Plaintiff’s reputation by spreading false facts that the Plaintiff was not a resident who illegally resided to many and unspecified persons. However, the evidence No. 8-1 (Public Notice) cannot be used as evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ defamation act as the representative’s defamation act by means of the public announcement of the F apartment Election Commission’s preparation. The evidence No. 8-1, No. 2, and 3 (No. 8-1, No.

arrow