(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.05.29 2014노301

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) 의정부지방법원 2014.05.29 2014노301

정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반(명예훼손)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not state that the applicant would make a cash settlement in the contract entered into with the Dispute Resolution D and the defendant, the statement of K, and the contract, but the company that has promised to make a cash settlement (I and J companies) has not made a contract to make a cash settlement, and the defendant has not raised any objection even after receiving a bill or note from the Dispute Resolution D, and there has been no agreement to make a cash settlement, and the defendant did not complete the construction by April 2012, and the defendant did not complete the construction even by April 2012, and the defendant did not pay the construction cost. The defendant did not perform the construction work by the Dispute Resolution D in terms of the amount of KRW 70,000,00,000, and the contractor may refuse to pay the remaining construction cost to the contractor until the defect repair is completed. Therefore, there is a justifiable reason that the Dispute Resolution

Therefore, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the premise that the defendant's notice was false, despite the fact that the plaintiff did not pay the construction balance and additional amount from February to February, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the premise that the contents of the letter posted by the defendant are true.

2. Determination

A. The lower court did not have agreed to pay in full the cash when concluding a contract for construction with the Defendant Company.

However, according to the public trial and records, in the case of a company I and J companies, etc., the contract did not specify the cash settlement conditions at the time of entering into a subcontract with the company A and the company A and D, but it can confirm the situation of the oral cash settlement agreement at the time of entering into a contract with the company A and D. In addition, the dispute between the defendant company D and the company A and the company A and the company A and they eventually result in civil litigation.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.04.25 2017가단13414

-대구지방법원 2018.11.23 2017가단18092

-수원지방법원 2020.10.08 2020나56025

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.01.20 2015가단2876

-서울북부지방법원 2015.10.23 2015가단2505