beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from February 26, 2013 to August 30, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 31, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the spouse of CJ president, was discharged from the Army First Lieutenant on July 31, 2016, and the Defendant is in office as a professor of CJL.
B. Around October 2012, the Defendant sent a note to the reporter of the E Newspaper to the effect that “the Plaintiff exercised inappropriate authority at a university or college as his spouse,” and on February 26, 2013, the E Newspaper was accompanied by the Plaintiff’s employees in Chinese travel.
② The Plaintiff mobilized the C&D staff and students to the promotion curtailment.
③ The Plaintiff’s improper use of the CPY center was reported.
C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant with the above report that defames the Plaintiff, and the summary order was issued against the Defendant with the content of the report, ①, ②, ③ and ③.
The defendant requested formal trial against the summary order, and the above ① in the case (Seoul Central District Court 2014Ma4138) and ② in the case of the above (3), the judgment of not guilty was rendered.
In this case (Seoul Central District Court 2016No3032), only the above paragraph (1) has been convicted, and the judgment of innocence has become final and conclusive, and the judgment has become final and conclusive.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 11, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. Among the above contents reported in the E-mail, the above paragraph (1) became final and conclusive as the defendant injured the plaintiff's reputation. In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances that the defendant informed, the background, details and circumstances of the report, and the result of trial, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as three million won.
B. The plaintiff is not guilty of the above contents reported to E-mail.