beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff was the head of the business team of C, and the defendant was the vice president of the above company.
B. On May 31, 2018, the Defendant, at the office of the pertinent company with several employees, is the same as the Plaintiff.
들어왔냐 (소리지르며) 아, 주제파악을 못해, 아니, 상대방한테 뭘 이야기하려고 그러면 자기 주제파악을 하고
(h) no knowledge should be made. He or she may not know about the distribution of fakes. Where he or she knows, he or she said that he or she was ‘I’, ‘I’, ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I'
(hereinafter “instant tort”). C.
The defendant is against the Seoul Western District Court on August 24, 2018.
A summary order of KRW 300,000 was issued due to the offense of insult due to the facts stated in the port.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the above facts of recognition of damages liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the tort of this case.
B. In full view of the purport of evidence No. 3 of medical expenses 1 and the entire arguments, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 335,500 (= KRW 326,900) from June 1, 2018 to August 13, 2018 as medical expenses incurred from the instant tort (i.e., KRW 326,900). (ii) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff should receive KRW 8,000,000 as consolation money. However, as seen earlier, the consolation money for emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiff shall be determined as KRW 1,00,000,000, by taking account of various circumstances such as the form and degree of the instant tort.
C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant’s 1,335,500 won (i.e., medical expenses of KRW 335,500,000) and the amount of KRW 1,00,000, which is the amount cited in the first instance trial, are deemed reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation from May 31, 2018, which is the date of the tort in this case.