logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.11.16 2018나53839
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From March 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant came to be on August 2016, the Plaintiff came to be on or around August 2016.

B. As between September 13, 2016 and June 17, 2017, the Defendant sent text messages to the Plaintiff to the effect that, as if the Plaintiff was pregnant, the Plaintiff would threaten the Plaintiff with the same content as the indicated in the attached text messages No. 1 as that of the Plaintiff, and demand monetary compensation as a result of the injury compensation, even though the fact was not pregnant through the relationship with the Plaintiff.

C. In addition, the Defendant posted a letter on Twitter and Facebook, the same content as the notice in attached Table 2, 1, 2, and 3, from October 22, 2016 to June 18, 2017, using his Twitter accounts (C, D, E), and Facebook (F).

The Defendant was indicted with the same content as the facts constituting a criminal offense in attached Form 4, such as the Defendant’s publication of the foregoing content that defames the Plaintiff’s reputation or openly posted a video recording of the Plaintiff’s body, and the Defendant was indicted (the Jeonju District Court Decision 2017Da734, 2018Ma24 (Joint))). On February 9, 2018, the said court sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 3 million, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 64, 69, 80 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant committed an act of intimidation or attack against the plaintiff, and committed an unlawful act by posting a notice that defames the plaintiff, or sending a text message that arouses fear or apprehension, 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 mental damage suffered by the plaintiff in money due to the above unlawful act.

Next, we examine the amount of consolation money that the defendant should pay.

arrow