logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.09.29 2016고정932
명예훼손등
Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

The defendant is serving as the Dong representative of the Daejeon Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B apartment complex 102, and the victim C is serving as the chairperson of the above apartment occupant's representative.

1. The Defendant of defamation, on January 28, 2016, is informed on the bulletin board installed in the elevator for each of the above apartment units.

The title "C Chairperson (victim) posted a notice stating that "The reason why D Auditor would be punished by 60 million won to the occupants, not to attack the D Auditor, but to explain it to the occupants so that the occupants can understand it in a true manner."

However, the 60 million won stated in the above notice was an auditor of the above apartment occupant's representative meeting.

D The application for provisional disposition was made on the ground that it obstructed the inspection of documents against the resident representative meeting, etc., and the decision of indirect compulsory payment was made, and collected 60 million won from the resident representative meeting, which was granted with the execution clause. However, since then, the resident representative meeting filed a lawsuit claiming the return of unfair profits, and recovered 60 million won again upon the court's final decision, and D filed a petition for review on the ground that the above decision was unfair.

Therefore, the request for a retrial against D's 60 million won is that D will recover 60 million won already recovered from the funds of the occupants, and it is not that D will bring money to the occupants. Thus, even if the victim did not comply with D's request for conciliation in the retrial procedure requested by D, it does not cause any damage to the occupants, and the defendant is the Dong representative of the above apartment, as well as the auditor is also responsible for it, it was well aware of its contents.

Nevertheless, the defendant's defendant's failure to comply with the D's request for mediation is false as it causes damage to the occupants.

arrow