beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From around 2007, the Plaintiff’s personal broadcasting (hereinafter “the instant broadcast”) is proceeding from around 2007 to “C” from “Africa TV” as the Internet’s personal broadcasting site.
B. On July 16, 2013, the Defendant connected to the instant broadcast, posted a letter of “G” as “F” to a dialogic name on the hosting hold, which is reported by many unspecified viewers (hereinafter “instant notice”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant posted the notice of this case containing language that could undermine the plaintiff's social evaluation or misleadly evaluate the contents of this case's broadcast which can confirm the contents of this article by accessing many and unspecified persons, and it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay consolation money to the plaintiff.
Furthermore, as to the amount of consolation money, the broadcast hold of this case posts a letter of support or opposition in the short of real time, and it seems that the time during which the comments of this case were exposed to viewers is relatively short, and thus the possibility or influence of its dissemination is not significant. Considering the circumstances indicated in the arguments of this case, such as the content of the notice of this case, the degree of expression and the amount of amount of expression, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as KRW 10,000.
B. 1 The defendant's defense, etc. is judged by the defendant, all citizens have the freedom of expression, and fundamental rights should be guaranteed. The defendant's letter of notice in this case was posted for public purposes for the people who were administered by the state, but the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case was brought against the principle of good faith.