logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.08.12 2014나11246
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. On December 6, 2013, the Plaintiffs’ basic facts were filed with the U.S. District Court 2013Kahap514 against the Defendant and the designated parties (hereinafter “Defendant et al.”). The Defendant et al. shall not interfere with the worship by distributing printed items containing false facts prior to the worship of the Plaintiff A Religious Organization B (hereinafter “Plaintiff church”) and destroying the church goods, etc., or by spreading, attaching, distributing, distributing, or distributing, etc., the former, advertising sites, books, and printed articles containing the same purport. ② The Defendant et al. shall not make and distribute materials and printed articles related to the Plaintiff’s private life, or publish false information about the Plaintiffs as news articles via the Internet and newspapers, etc. ③ In the event that the Defendant et al. violated each of the above orders, the Defendant et al. shall not have received a provisional disposition ordering the Plaintiffs to pay KRW 100 per 10,000 as well as indirect coercion.

2. On December 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant, etc. is obligated to pay KRW 1,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff each in accordance with the above order of indirect compulsory performance, on the grounds that: (a) the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, etc. used guard service personnel around 06:0 of December 22, 2013 to occupy a church; (b) destroyed and damaged the signs; and (c) obstructed the worship of the Plaintiff church by controlling the teachers’ access; and (d) the selected violated the obligations ordered in the above order of provisional disposition by making a speech or behavior that slanders Plaintiff C

Before determining the plaintiffs' assertion, the decision of indirect compulsory performance itself is independent title, and thus, the execution clause shall be granted by proving the other party's breach of duty in order to execute indirect compulsory performance ordered by indirect compulsory performance decision.

arrow