(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.11.27 2014나8863

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) 서울남부지방법원 2014.11.27 2014나8863

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. After being detained on the criminal facts that E, a member of the entire D church located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, embezzled the church funds, the members, including the plaintiff who oppose E, and the designated members, who support E, were divided into two different members and were seriously conflicting with each other.

B. Around June 24, 2012, the Appointor F posted a plos with a printed letter “Demba” on the road of the Diplomatic Conference, and Defendant B and the Appointor H puted on the plos, stating “A who directs the head of the Diplomatic Assembly,” around July 1, 2012.

C. On September 26, 2013, the Appointor F was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 as a criminal fact that “The Plaintiff was only a gathering agent of the Doluri branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the branch of the Dluri branch of the branch of the Dluri branch of the Dluri branch of the branch of the Dluri branch of the branch of the Dluri branch of the branch of the Dluri branch of the branch of the D branch of the branch of the branch of the D branch of the branch of the Gu, by posting the fl

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-3, 6 evidence (including branch numbers), significant facts, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the occurrence and scope of liability for damages, and the above fact of recognition, the act of the defendant and the designated parties constitutes defamation against the plaintiff. Since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering, the defendant and the designated parties are obliged to pay consolation money for mental suffering to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, as to the amount of consolation money that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff, the health team and the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2013.09.26 2013고정911

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.13 2017고정3733

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2014.05.21 2014고정8

-서울서부지방법원 2014.10.24 2014고단182

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.29 2021고정906