logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.17 2014나55276
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff served as the representative of C Association, an animal protection organization, from August 31, 2002 to July 2013.

피고는 2013. 1. 23. 9:43경 인터넷 사이트인 ‘D’의 ‘유져 D’ 게시판에 ‘E’라는 대화명으로 접속하여, 성명불상자가 “F”라는 제목으로 2007. 7. 1. 원고가 G과 개고기 식용 찬반토론을 한 동영상을 업로드한 게시글에 대한 댓글로 “여자 저거 유명하지 않냐 개랑 동화되서 개소리만 한다고 ㅇㅇ.”이라는 내용의 댓글을 작성하여 게시하였다.

The defendant was indicted for committing an offense that insults the plaintiff by posting the above comments on the Internet website bulletin board as Suwon District Court No. 2013 High Court's Ansan Branch 2011, and was notified of a summary order of KRW 300,000,000. A summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 7, and the facts of the above recognition as to the grounds for a claim as to the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant used a language that may undermine the plaintiff's social reputation on the bulletin board of the Internet website where many unspecified persons can access and confirm the contents of the writing, and insult the plaintiff, and it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the above damages with money.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 300,000 in consideration of the various circumstances shown in the argument of this case, such as the content and circumstance of the article posted by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant, from January 23, 2013, which was the date of tort, about the plaintiff's 300,000 won and the plaintiff's lawsuit promotion from January 23, 2013 to June 17, 2015, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of his/her duty of performance, is about 5% per annum under the Civil Act and the next day to the date of full payment.

arrow