beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in the business of selling walves with the trade name of “E” in Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
B. Around July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff F paid the advertising cost of KRW 40,000 to “G” (hereinafter “G”), an Internet site, and posted an advertisement advertising the Plaintiff’s said place of business, and received orders from G members and sold woos and woos.
(c) During that process, F sent 10 boxes, c.i.e., vegetable G members with name unrecognative G, and c.m., F sent 10 boxes, c.m. packaging and stamp c.s. from G members, upon entering the c.m. order, requested G members to leave the c.m., and sold c.s. c.s. c.s.s. c.s. c.s.s. to pack the c.s. c.s. and
When the above sales act was reported to the media and the article related to various Internet bulletin boards was posted, the Defendants posted the comments, such as attached Table 2, on the bulletin posted on the Internet.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the determination of this safety defense by the Defendants constituted abuse of the right of action and thus ought to be dismissed, since the Plaintiff planned a lawsuit with G Members for malicious purposes to receive the agreed amount, and claimed damages against the Plaintiff in advance against the Plaintiff, and thus, it constitutes abuse of the right of action.
However, the above circumstance alleged by the Defendants alone is that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case only aims to inflict pain on the Defendants and inflict damages on them, and it is difficult to view the Plaintiff as an abuse of right as an exercise of right in violation of social order and it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case as an abuse of right. No other evidence exists to deem that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case constitutes abuse of right. Thus, the
3...