logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.09.07 2017나62999
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal against the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal against the principal lawsuit.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is residing in the upper floor of the apartment of which the Defendants reside. The Defendants found the Plaintiff’s house at the time beyond her own house on November 2016, and caused fear by opening the door by opening the door, and caused fears by opening the door. (C) around February 21, 2017, Defendant C re-exploded the Plaintiff’s house on February 21, 2017, and opened the door with the door and door door, and “I see it by opening the door so that you can see, she can see, she can see, she can see, she can see, she can do so.”

As a result, the Plaintiff suffered mental suffering and personal impairment, and the Defendants are obligated to pay 10,000,000 won to the Plaintiff as compensation for tort.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On October 15, 2016, the Defendants found the Plaintiff’s house and found the Plaintiff’s house around October 0, 2016. Although there was no dispute between the parties, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1, 2, and 11 of the evidence Nos. 1-2, on the other hand, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendants found the Plaintiff’s house due to noise in which the Plaintiff and the Defendants were living in the lower home, and such noise was presumed to take place at the Plaintiff’s house, which is the upper home of the Plaintiff’s house, up to the time when the Defendants were living in the lower home. The Defendants divided the first class, and the Defendants did not take the Plaintiff’s personal phone but did not take part in the Plaintiff’s phone, and the Defendants were forced to take part in the Plaintiff’s phone. However, the Defendants did not have any other evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ unlawful act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion remains.

arrow