beta
Text
1. The Defendants each amounting to KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff, as well as Defendant B, from April 19, 2017, and Defendant C, D, E, and F, respectively.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From around 2007, the Plaintiff is proceeding with the instant broadcast by “G” as the clinic of “H” at “G”, which is the Internet’s personal broadcasting website.”
B. The Defendants connected to the instant broadcast and posted a letter (hereinafter “each of the instant notices”) as shown in the attached list on the hosting windows reported by many and unspecified viewers.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 13 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants posted each of the instant notices that could include low-speed language in the hosting hold of the instant broadcast, which can confirm the contents of the text by accessing an unspecified number of people, or that the Plaintiff’s social evaluation would be lowered and wrong. This is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress. Accordingly, the Defendants are obliged to pay consolation money to the Plaintiff.
Furthermore, as to the amount of consolation money, the broadcast reception of this case is a place where many people have expressed a letter of support or opposition in real time, and the time during which each of the instant comments was exposed to viewers is relatively short, and thus the possibility or influence of dissemination is not significant. In light of the background and content of the publication of each of the instant comments, and the content and nature of the instant broadcasts, etc., the amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff shall be determined as KRW 50,000, respectively.
Therefore, the Defendants’ respective KRW 50,00 as consolation money, and Defendant B, a tort against the Plaintiff, filed a lawsuit, etc. from April 19, 2017, and from April 20, 2017, Defendant C, D, E, and F, each of which dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendants’ performance obligation from April 20, 2017 to June 16, 2020, respectively, are 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 5% from the next day to the day of full payment.