logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.09.25 2019나11617
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an employee of the Daejeon Postnatal Care Center C (hereinafter “instant cook”).

B. On June 12, 2015, the Defendant hospitalized in Esanbu’s hospital located in the same address as the cook of this case, and gave birth to the following day.

Around June 19, 2015, the Defendant entered the Fho Lake room of this case and retired on the 25th of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 34, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant left milch disease with his own milk to G, who is another employee of the instant kitchen, but discovered milch disease with an additional cell attached to “F” on June 21, 2015, around 15:00, the Defendant spreaded false information that he had no employee of the milch disease with a frighting her mother’s milk, and that he attempted to drink the other her mother’s milk from the kitchen of this case.

The defendant's aforementioned false distribution is a tort that damages the plaintiff's reputation and interferes with his business, and the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the tort.

B. On the other hand, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation and interfered with the business by spreading false information, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 34, 60, and 61 of this case, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim on the ground that it is difficult to see the act of the defendant and the husband of the defendant as tort on January 10, 2018, while the cook of this case appealed against the defendant and the husband of the defendant (Seoul District Court 2016Gahap213, 473 (Merger)). This part of the purport of the claim upon appeal by the cook of this case.

arrow