logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.20 2018나526
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. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged in each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including branch numbers), and there is no counter-proof.

(1) On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff had an interview with the Cpress in relation to the structure of victims of the Sewol ferry accident, and reported the contents of the interview by many media companies. After which the Plaintiff was indicted for violating the Act on Promotion of the Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation), but was acquitted on January 9, 2015, on September 1, 2016. The Plaintiff was acquitted on the charge of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation).

(2) 피고는 2014. 4. 29.경 인터넷 루리웹(http://ruliweb.daum.net) 게시판에 성명불상자가 ‘D’이라는 제목으로 관련 신문고 기사 url을 링크한 게시물에 원고에 대하여 닉네임 ‘E', 아이디 ’F'를 사용하여 ‘요년 하는 짓이 귀엽네 ㅁㅊ년‘이라는 댓글을 게시하여 공연히 피해자를 모욕하였다.

(3) Thereafter, the Defendant was indicted for the offense of insult 200,000 by Goyang-gu District Court 2015 Goyang-do499 due to the above crime and was subject to criminal punishment of a fine of KRW 200,000.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant posted an article on the Internet website bulletin that enables a large number of unspecified persons to confirm the contents of the article, thereby insulting the Plaintiff’s social reputation. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff in cash pursuant to Article 751(1) of the Civil Act.

2. The Defendant’s scope of liability for damages reported to the effect that “the Plaintiff asserted false facts and interviewed them.” In fact, the Plaintiff is false.

arrow