beta
Text
1. All of the appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant and Review Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of the retrial shall be the plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant.
Reasons
1. The facts under the following basic facts are significant or obvious in records to this court:
On November 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation of KRW 5,00,00, alleging that the Defendant posted comments on the Plaintiff’s reputation on “C” bulletin board (DAUM), which was established following the Internet portal site (DAUM). The Defendant, on November 9, 2014, filed a counterclaim claiming payment of KRW 1,00,000, which is a part of the consolation money remaining after offsetting the Plaintiff’s claim asserted that the Plaintiff posted comments on the Defendant’s reputation on the above Internet camera bulletin board, and the Defendant dismissed both the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit and the Defendant’s counterclaim on July 15, 2015.
B. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed, and the appellate court (the appellate court 2015Na28347, 2015Na28354 (Counterclaim)) rendered a judgment dismissing all the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s appeal on April 6, 2016 on the grounds that the content of the writing posted by the Plaintiff and the Defendant constituted defamation publicly alleged in a specific fact infringing social values or evaluations. The original copy of the judgment is the same year as of April 10, 2016.
4. 12. Each service was rendered on April 27, 2016 to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but the said judgment became final and conclusive on the grounds that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not appeal.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, based on the judgment of the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015MaMa1651, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine, on the grounds that the Defendant was found to have committed a crime of defamation and insult, and thus, this constitutes a case where a civil or criminal judgment, or other judgment or administrative disposition, which served as the basis for the judgment subject to retrial, was changed by a different judgment
However, Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 1651 decided April 6, 2016.