logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.04.12 2018나58810
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All appeals against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

Reasons

1. The scope of this Court’s trial at the first instance court to claim the payment of consolation money against the Defendant as the principal claim, and the Defendant claimed the payment of consolation money against the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff upon the counterclaim. The first instance court partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim of consolation money, dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim of consolation money, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim of consolation money. The Defendant’s claim of the counterclaim was dismissed.

Since only the defendant filed an appeal, the part of the plaintiff A's claim for consolation money and the counterclaim are only subject to the judgment of this court.

2. The reasoning for this part of the facts of recognition is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the judgment on the plaintiff A's main claim, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff A for mental suffering caused by the abuse of this case.

Furthermore, with respect to the amount of consolation money, the amount of consolation money shall be set at KRW 6 million in consideration of various circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as health team, the relationship between the Defendant and the Plaintiff A, the age of Plaintiff A, the circumstances surrounding, degree, and result of the instant abusive act.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff A consolation money of 6 million won and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from May 16, 2017 to August 9, 2018, which is reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to perform as requested by the plaintiff A, as a result of the above illegal act, from May 16, 2017, the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to May 16, 2017, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

4. Determination as to the defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff B

A. The defendant's assertion, the defendant, the plaintiff B and the plaintiff A.

arrow