2015 Ghana 52649 Damage (as such)

○ ○

Incheon Gyeyang-gu's paper

Attorney Lee Dong-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellant ( Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. Newly operated ○

Incheon Bupyeong-gu

2. Before reaching a new list;

Gaamam of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City

[Judgment of the court below]

April 27, 2016

May 25, 2016

1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 5 million won and to the Plaintiff 5% per annum from May 2, 2012 to May 25, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. 7/8 of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 40 million won with 5% interest per annum from May 2, 2012 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole pleadings, the following facts are recognized:

1) The Defendants, in the Incheon District Court 2013 High Court 2013 High Court 4014 High Court Decision, sentenced a penalty of five million won for each of the following criminal facts, and the said judgment became final and conclusive by withdrawing an appeal after appeal.

- Crime -

Defendant New ○ is the representative director of ○○ Information and Communications Co., Ltd. in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City ○○○○○○○○○, and Defendant New ○○ is the internal director of ○ Information and Communications Co., Ltd.

On May 2012, the Defendants drafted a written complaint against the Plaintiff using a word protocol at the ○○ Information and Communications Office. Notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff, who is the Defendant, was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff did not sell the mobile phone around January 2012, 200, ○○○○○○○○○○, Kim○, and ○○○○○○○○, which is the mobile phone sales place, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, was aware of the fact that the Defendant did not sell the said mobile phone, but did not sell the said mobile phone, the Defendants were aware of the fact that the Defendants did not sell the said mobile phone to the said ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and instead, did not directly commit the said criminal acts under the name of the said ○○○○○○○○, which was the Defendant’s accusation, and did not directly commit the said criminal acts.

As a result, the defendants conspired with the plaintiff for the purpose of having the plaintiff receive criminal punishment.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendants’ failure to dismiss the Plaintiff and committed a tort against the Plaintiff.

2. Calculation of damages;

(a) Property damage;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that, due to the Defendants’ non-determination, the Defendants were retired temporarily from office from office on March 24, 2012, and that the Defendants could not find employment until December 1, 2014, which became final and conclusive by the said judgment against the Defendants. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants suffered property damage ( = KRW 88,238,300,000,000,000) ( = the Plaintiff’s final monthly salary grade 2,673,888 x 33 months). Of them, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 30 million.

2) Determination

Only the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 and 4 are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered property loss as alleged above by the Defendants’ non-performance by the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff seems to have been temporarily dismissed from the above company, recognizing that the plaintiff caused damage to ○○ Information and Communications Technology due to occupational negligence.

(b) Consolation money;

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed as seen earlier, namely, the Defendants were investigating the Plaintiff as a suspect at the investigative agency, and caused the Plaintiff to testify in the first instance trial proceedings, arguing criminal facts even after the Defendants were indicted for non-prosecution, and the Defendants did not admit the Plaintiff as an executive officer of food company ○○ Information and Communications Co., Ltd. who performed duties in accordance with their instructions or approval; the amount of the fine sentenced by the Defendants; the amount of the fine sentenced by the Defendants; and the Plaintiff’s occupation, age, etc., the consolation money for mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff shall be set at five million won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to jointly pay the Plaintiff a solatium of KRW 5 million and the amount of delayed loss calculated by applying 15% per annum under the Civil Act from May 2, 2012, 2012, which is the date of tort, to May 25, 2016, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist the scope of his/her performance obligation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-won