(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.03.31 2015나26141

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 2016.03.31 2015나26141

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who served as the president of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and Defendant B is currently the president of the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment, Defendant C, and D as an auditor.

B. The Defendants filed a complaint with the Plaintiff under the charge of occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust on March 18, 2015. However, the Defendants rendered a final decision that the Defendants were not suspected of being suspected of having been sentenced to the lack of evidence.

C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants under the charge of false accusation, but the Plaintiff was issued a disposition that the Defendants were suspected of being suspected due to the lack of evidence on July 9, 2015.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 13-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants filed a complaint against the Plaintiff, and caused mental and physical pain to the Plaintiff, such as causing the Plaintiff to mislead the occupants of the apartment complex of this case as if they were wrong, so the Defendants are obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the tort (the amount of consolation money of KRW 123,960,000, respectively).

The defendant's act cannot be concluded as tort unless it is based on the intentional or gross negligence to the extent that the defendant's accusation is recognized as abuse of right, even though the defendant's accusation was subject to an investigation due to the suspected facts against which the complainant filed a complaint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da29556, Jan. 25, 1994; 2005Da29481, Apr. 28, 2006; 2005Da29481, Apr. 28, 2006). The plaintiff's complaint of this case is insufficient to be recognized as being caused by the defendant's intentional or gross negligence to the extent that it can be recognized as abuse of right, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit without the need to further examine the amount of damages.

3. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.

참조판례

-대법원 1994. 1. 25. 선고 93다29556 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.09.13 2017나8711

-광주지방법원순천지원 2017.06.21 2016가단14908

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.14 2017나12546

-수원지방법원 2018.05.30 2018가단501675

-전주지방법원 2018.08.24 2017나14126