beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 30, 2016 to January 23, 2018, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff, who served as E (E; hereinafter “E”), was commissioned as a member of the Supreme Court G on April 27, 2015, and Defendant B, as a member of the 20th National Assembly, whose term of office begins on May 30, 2016 (hereinafter “H”); Defendant C is the assistant of Defendant B; Defendant C is the assistant of Defendant B; and Defendant D is the secretary of Defendant B until August 7, 2016.
B. The summary of Defendant D’s questioning and the preparation of news report materials (1) Defendant D, through the Supreme Court’s prior report on the work from June 21, 2016 to June 21, 2016, requested data from the Supreme Court with a question about expertise, etc. as a member of the Plaintiff’s G who is a journalist, and carried out relevant explanatory notes against the Plaintiff.
(2) Defendant D received data requested by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2016, and discovered three newspaper articles related to the Plaintiff through book keeping and Internet portal site search for the Plaintiff.
(3) Of the above newspaper articles, one of the above newspaper articles includes the Plaintiff’s photograph inserted “K” on the statement “A E-New F” to the effect that the Plaintiff is “a principal who caused a strike by making a news report, etc. to J or F,” and that “K” includes the Plaintiff’s photograph.
The remaining newspaper article 1 is an article containing the title "L" in the title "as a half of paper 1 page 1," stating that "the reporter in K was subject to two months of suspension from office in the internal personnel committee on the ground of physical contact with four non-regular female members of the same department on December 31, 2012, such as that he/she was forced to have a fluoral and forced to have a fluoral and forced to do so," and "M reporter would be punished once again," and "AF could not have contacted him/her to hear his/her internal criticism, but could not hear his/her answer."
(4) Defendant D’s indecent act committed against the Plaintiff at K.