(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.28 2018나44489

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.28 2018나44489

위자료

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On August 8, 2014, the Defendant: (a) took a bath to the Plaintiff and the selected C by telephone, thereby causing mental pain to the Plaintiff and the selected C.

B. On March 21, 2015, the Defendant suffered mental pain to the Plaintiff by bringing the Plaintiff a bath and harming honor in the situation where the forest green belt and affiliated public officials are in the vicinity of the forest at the time of Chungcheong-si, Chungcheong-si, Chungcheong-si, Chungcheong-si.

C. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff and the Selection C for each of the above mental distress.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the tort as of August 8, 2014, Gap evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 1-2, the defendant made a statement to the plaintiff on August 8, 2014, and it is acknowledged that the plaintiff called "the same farb like illness" and "this farbs and farbs" was made to the selection party C. Thus, it is evident in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff and the selected party C suffered mental pain, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money to the plaintiff and the selected party C. Thus, the defendant has a duty to pay consolation money to each of the above claims for consolation money. Thus, the defendant has a defense that the above claim for consolation money has expired. The lawsuit of this case from August 8, 2014, which is the defendant's tort, to which the period of extinctive prescription prescribed in Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act has expired, and the plaintiff's defense has no reason for the above plaintiff's defense.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff regarding the tort as of March 21, 2015 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, made a bath or an honor to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

참조조문

-민법 제766조 제1항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.05.13 2014가단54492

-부산지방법원 2008.7.22.선고 2007가단122663 판결

-의정부지방법원 2020.10.22 2020가단103689

-서울북부지방법원 2019.06.18 2018가단22968

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2017.05.11 2016가단149