logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.09.02 2020나442
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. On November 28, 2018, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff gave a bath to the Plaintiff. On May 10, 2019, the Defendant demanded D to pay unjust money and made a statement that the Plaintiff may cause damage to the Plaintiff’s social assessment by pointing out false facts as if he had given a false interest.

The above act of the defendant constitutes a tort under the Civil Act by impairing the plaintiff's honor and infringing on the personality right. The defendant is liable for damages against the plaintiff.

2. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. Defamation, which is a tort under the relevant legal doctrine and civil law, refers to an act infringing upon an objective evaluation received from a society on a human value, such as a person’s character, virtue, reputation, and credit, and as long as such an objective evaluation is infringed, it may also be established by an act of expression expressing an opinion or comment.

However, a simple statement of opinion alone does not obstruct the other party's social assessment. Thus, in a case where a pure opinion or comment that is not premised on a statement of fact is purely expressed or commented, liability for damages caused by defamation is not established, but on the other hand, liability for damages caused by defamation is not limited to a case where a statement of fact is directly expressed, even if it is based on an indirect or round expression, it indicates the existence of such fact in light of the whole purport of that expression, and thereby, it is sufficient that there is a possibility that the social value or assessment of a specific person may be infringed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da6203 delivered on July 28, 2000). In addition, the mere reason that an expressive act person expressed critical opinions against another person cannot be deemed unlawful. However, the form and content of the expressive act constitutes an insulting and anti-defensive personal attack or distorted facts beyond a certain degree of exaggeration regarding another person’s personal affairs.

arrow