beta
Text
1. Defendant E shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs KRW 7,00,000 and 15% per annum from January 13, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Claim against Defendant E
A. Plaintiff A and B are married couple, Plaintiff C and C are children of Plaintiff C and B, and Defendant E is a person who engages in the business of investigating another’s private life. Defendant E received a request from Defendant F, who was a father of GJ, and supervised the Plaintiffs’ private life over several occasions from April 17, 2013, and thereby, the Plaintiffs suffered emotional distress, such as the Plaintiff’s certificate of challenge and depression. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are liable to compensate each of the Plaintiffs for KRW 7,00,000.
(b) Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Claim against Defendant F;
A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1 to 6 of the facts acknowledged as Gap, as a whole.
1) Plaintiff A, B, and D are children of Plaintiff A and B, both of whom are members of the G church, and Defendant F is the father of the G church. 2) From around December 2012, Plaintiff A raised an issue regarding the suspicion of embezzlement of the members of the G church in relation to the obligations of the G church.
3) Accordingly, around March 2013, Defendant F requested Defendant E, who is engaged in the business of investigating another’s private life, to find out whether the Plaintiff is a H church’s reputation, and paid the price therefor. 4) Defendant E, upon the request of Defendant F, did not work for the Plaintiff on four occasions from April 17, 2013 to February 2, 201, and reported it to Defendant F.
5) On March 11, 2015, the Defendants issued a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 each of the fines under the 2015 High Court Branch Decision 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 201Da13555 on March 11, 2015. (B) According to the facts of the Plaintiff’s claim recognition, Defendant F instigated Defendant E to illegally investigate the Plaintiff’s private life, and accordingly, Defendant E did not take the Plaintiff’s behavior and photographs.