(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.15 2017나6815 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2017.11.15 2017나6815

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants (Defendant C is the Plaintiff’s birth, Defendant C’s husband, and Defendant C’s husband) visited the Defendants’ house around May 30, 2015. Defendant B, who forced the Plaintiff’s arms, led the Plaintiff to the front road, led the Plaintiff to the front road, and led the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff’s money. The Plaintiff got her face of the Plaintiff, and Defendant C sent an article on the Plaintiff’s face. Defendant C sent a big interest to “I must not have paid the money.”

The plaintiff suffered mental damage due to the above assault and insult by the defendants, and the defendants are obligated to pay 1 million won and damages for delay as part of the consolation money to the plaintiff.

2. In relation to the Defendant B’s act of assault, in full view of the purport of the entire argument in the statement of evidence No. 2, the Goyang District Court's Goyang Branch's judgment acknowledged the fact that Defendant B made a non-prosecution disposition (not guilty of suspicion) on the basis of the fact that the witness D did not regard the Plaintiff’s act of assault, which the Plaintiff asserted. In light of this, it is difficult to believe the record of evidence No. 2, which corresponds to the Plaintiff’s argument, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, with respect to the defendants' insult, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence No. 2, which corresponds to the plaintiff's assertion, is written as it is, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it

Even if the Defendants made a statement to the same purport, the dispute over the money issue between the Plaintiff and the Defendants continued to exist for a long time. However, there may be room to regard the Plaintiff as a somewhat emotional response with the indication of a claim against the Defendants’ visit to the Defendants’ house upon urging the discharge of obligation. Therefore, it cannot be recognized as an insulting act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without examining it.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.12.21 2016나2017031

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.18 2015나8499

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.25 2016가단5212350

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.23 2014가단5252118

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.18 2017가단5012731