logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나50536
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. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s assertion interferes with the Plaintiff’s business by spreading false facts about the Plaintiff’s third party director, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the aforementioned tort.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant posted a banner on the third party’s outer wall of the third party, with the purport of the entire pleadings in each video of the evidence No. 4-1 to No. 9, stating, “I would like to have any dispute between the parties to the judgment or in full view of the purport of the oral proceedings,” which read, “I would like to have any hazardous substance which would have been exposed to dysing out due to dysing the atmosphere, combined with damp, and inhaled into the air, and inhaled into waste. I would like to see that I would like to see the business owner and the public official of the company in good faith. I would like to see that I would like to purchase the banner from the hysium to the hysium. I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see the following facts: “I would like to say I would like to say I would like to say I would like to say I would like to say I would like to see the health of the users.”

It is also acknowledged that the contents for advertising the excellence of Defendant Sejong, such as “,” are included in the contents for advertising, and considering these, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above posting of banner by the Defendant constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff or that the Plaintiff sustained losses due to such act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3...

arrow