beta
Text
1. The Defendants’ respective KRW 50,000 per annum from July 28, 2013 to September 11, 2018, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is operating a store with the trade name called “H” at a store located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.
B. On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff’s I paid the advertising fee of KRW 40,000 to the “J (hereinafter “J”)”, an Internet site, and posted an advertisement to publicize the instant store, and then sold walkings upon receiving orders from the members of the instant site.
C. During that time, from members of the site of this case, the address to display 10 boxes, booms and stamp 10 boxes, such as [Attachment 1] images, which were sent from the members of the site of this case, and upon entering the head and stamp order from the members of the site of this case, the applicant was requested to pack them with the packaging and stamp as gift.
In response, the plaintiff I received orders from the members of the site of this case and sealed the walpists in the above package and delivered them several times with stamp seals.
E. The other members of the site of this case, which was delivered with the package box box, posted the pertinent articles and photographs on the bulletin board of the site of this case. Such sales were reported to the media, and the pertinent articles were posted on various Internet bulletin boards.
F. On the same date as the attached Table 2, the Defendants carried out comments, articles, etc. as shown in the attached Table 2 as above.
[Reasons] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, 5, 6, family evidence 1, 2, 3, 7-1, 2, and 8-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. (1) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendants openly insulting the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff suffered mental damage. Thus, the defendants have a duty to avoid mental damage of the plaintiff in money.
(2) Accordingly, Defendant F et al. are not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff.