beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As from April 21, 2014, Defendant B’s KRW 200,00 and its related thereto:
B. Defendant C shall be KRW 200,000 and this shall apply.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff had an interview with H in general programming channels and figures in relation to G, and the interview was broadcasted on April 18, 2014, and the article about the Plaintiff was reported by many media companies.
B. The Defendants, on each of the following dates, prepared and posted the relevant comments and comments related to the Plaintiff on each of the relevant Internet bulletin boards, etc. (hereinafter “each of the instant bulletin boards”).
Defendant Temporary IJ Data Office on April 21, 2014, B, the Internet bulletin board content B of the Internet bulletin board of the Defendant, and K bulletin board, are in the shape of the first offense, and I would like to be off, flad with L upper A on April 21, 2014, the middle omission one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one.
분리수거도 안되는냔, 껍닥을 베껴야데 이냔은 D 2014. 4. 18. M 상동 A 이년 뭐임 . 완전 개똘아이네요.
Moroca Doz. Doz. Daz.
E On April 19, 2014, the NNA Blob Blob Blobs, which was not the same year as NNA Blob Blobs, and omitted on April 20, 2014, when O NNA Blobs Blobs are written in this article, they will not be taken openly, but I wish to be this document.
C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff was indicted on January 9, 2015 on the charge of impairing the honor of the Commissioner General of the Korea Coast Guard by openly pointing out false facts with respect to H and the above interview, but was acquitted on January 9, 2015. The Prosecutor appealed to the Gwangju District Court 2015No200 and the indictment was modified, but the said court acquitted the Plaintiff on September 1, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 15, 16 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the occurrence and scope of the liability for damages and the above recognition, the Defendants would have reduced the Plaintiff’s social reputation on each of the instant bulletin boards, which enables multiple and unspecified persons to access and verify the contents of the text.