logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.10.30 2018가단2398
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant C’s KRW 1,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 23, 2018 to October 30, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B had access to the Plaintiff, who works as the source of occupation of DNA, and had committed a tort of sexual assaulting the Plaintiff 7 to 8 times in total by deceptive means, on the grounds that Defendant B, “the father and the mother are not good and divorced, and married to the same person,” etc., and thus, Defendant B has a duty to compensate the Plaintiff for mental damage caused by the said unlawful act.

B. Defendant C, in collaboration with Defendant E on September 11, 2016, committed joint assault by putting the Plaintiff’s head debt, breaking it down on the floor, etc. On the ground that Defendant C, while showing the Plaintiff’s photograph among many people, such as employees F, etc., within a marina operated by the Plaintiff on November 2016, Defendant C committed a tort that defames the Defendant’s reputation by sound as “this woman is her husband and fright female with our husband.” As such, Defendant C is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for emotional distress caused by the said tort.

2. Determination

A. The claim against Defendant B was examined, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s tort, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant B through a deceptive scheme against sexual assault, etc. on March 14, 2018, but the prosecutor of the Gwangju District Court’s Macheon Branch Office found the facts of non-prosecution disposition based on suspicion (defluence of evidence).

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7 against Defendant C, Defendant C jointly committed a joint assault by discovering that the Plaintiff had with Defendant C’s husband at G unmanned telecom, which was located in the city of 2:0 on September 11, 2016, by discovering that the Plaintiff was in existence with Defendant C’s husband, and by cutting down the Plaintiff’s head debt on the floor, and cutting down the Plaintiff’s head debt over the bottom. On November 2016, 2016, the Plaintiff work at the early time.

arrow