logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.12.13 2016가단69218
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B: (a) from April 21, 2014, as well as KRW 1,000,000; (b)

B. Defendant C is charged with KRW 3,000,000.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s media interview had an interview with MBN in relation to the structure of the sinking accident of D Sewol ferry, and the interview was broadcast on the day, and the articles related to the Plaintiff were reported by many media companies.

The Plaintiff was indicted as a charge of impairing the honor of the Commissioner General of the Korea Coast Guard by openly pointing out false facts with respect to the interview with MBN, but was sentenced not guilty in the appellate trial on September 1, 2016.

B. Defendant B’s tort Elub web community - Plux bulletin board as “F” posted the photograph and writing on the Plaintiff, and this Defendant written the following comments on the same day.

The term "Chewing years of this age"

C. The Defendant’s tort committed by Defendant C, as the undisclosed title “G” on the bulletin board of the D BB repository, written the following writing.

“씨발골빈년아 나도 고소해봐라 보지를 아예 씹창내버릴까보다 개허벌창년같으니 바다에들어가서 크라켄이랑 촉수물찍을년 들어는가보고 앵앵대는거냐 근데 추석에 잠깐한국갈껀데 상관없지 이렇게욕해도 457비자가지고있어서 호주에서 계속살고 있다” [다툼 없음]

2. The Defendants are obliged to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff in money, on the Internet bulletin board that enables an unspecified number of people to confirm the contents of the writing, by posting a letter that may undermine the Plaintiff’s social reputation and thereby having committed a tort that insults the Plaintiff.

The amount to be compensated by Defendant B, taking into account the various circumstances shown in the pleadings, such as the contents (Defendant B’s writing and Defendant C’s main text) of the Defendants’ writing, developments, and circumstances thereafter, shall be determined as one million won, and the amount to be compensated by Defendant C, as three million won.

3. Conclusion claims against the Defendants are partly justified.

arrow