logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2015.02.11 2014가단27340
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The Defendants asserted that they conspired with E to prepare a report containing the following false information (hereinafter “the instant report”), and Defendant D as vice president, Defendant C signed as the president, and the transaction between Daeyangpex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Mayangpex”) and Plaintiff A was suspended. The Defendants spread the said false information around the Plaintiff, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff’s credit decline.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate Plaintiff A for damages, which is the sum of KRW 1.5 million out of the total amount of delivery loss from August 2013 to May 2014, 2014, KRW 20 million, and KRW 5 million of consolation money due to Plaintiff A’s credit damage, and KRW 1 million of consolation money for personal mental distress as the representative director of Plaintiff A as the representative director.

The false contents of the report of this case are as follows.

① The instant report was prepared based on false facts that a high level of salt salt is generated in the carter supplied by the Plaintiff A to the Daeyangex, resulting in a bad faith, and that the gold products produced by the Taeyang Franex will be defective in the quality of the gold products.

(hereinafter “instant assertion”). (2) A false statement on August 6, 2013, which was the date of preparation of the instant report.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant assertion” (hereinafter “instant assertion”). ③ The instant paper written “MADEIN CHINA” is written as “MADA” and it is false that the Plaintiff supplied the instant paper to the Daeyangtech.

(hereinafter “instant assertion”) 2. Determination

A. 1) Whether the instant report is false or not, as stated in the evidence No. 3 alone, as to the instant claim No. 1, it is insufficient to acknowledge the instant assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the instant claim No. 1 is without merit. 2)

arrow