(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.17 2017나8684

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.17 2017나8684

위자료

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 300,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from July 15, 2015 to August 17, 2017.

Reasons

1. The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Category B(1) through (6) by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

The defendant is a sectional owner of D Building 501, which is an aggregate building in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case"), who has served as an auditor of the council of occupants' representatives of the above D Complex Building.

B. On July 15, 2015, around 06:20 on the first floor of the instant building, the Defendant publicly insultingd the Plaintiff by citing that the Plaintiff would not interfere with the management of the parking lot to the Defendant, etc., and that it would not interfere with the management of the parking lot to the Defendant, etc., among the employees of the management body of commercial buildings and the occupants.

(hereinafter “instant insulting act”). C.

On June 16, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of a fine of KRW 500,000 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Ma344, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, it can be acknowledged in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental suffering due to the insult of the defendant in this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff due to the insult of this case to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have inflicted mental damage on the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff’s witnessing to unfairly point out the new wall management office of the instant building from the new wall with some commercial occupants and causing the movement of the building, and there was no sign, thereby causing the insult of the instant building. However, in light of the situation at the time of the Defendant’s insulting act and the content and degree of expression, etc., the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone caused the insult of the instant case.

It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff did not suffer mental damage due to the insult.

The defendant.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.12.22 2015나308730

-수원지방법원 2016.10.06 2015나38696

-서울북부지방법원 2020.06.05 2019가단111735

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.09.24 2018나1046

-수원지방법원 2018.10.11 2018나62690