beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 6, 2017 to April 3, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 13, 1992, the defendant is a legally married couple who completed a marriage report with C on January 13, 1992, and two children are under the chain.
B. In April 2016, the Plaintiff was dispatched to the customer center emergency exit team of the E office employed by C from April 2016, and served as a call center counselor, and retired on December 21, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendant threatened the Plaintiff by sending text messages to the Plaintiff’s fellows F, superior G, and H, and the Plaintiff’s scenarios, by pointing out the false facts that each of the Plaintiff and C are in incompact relationships, thereby impairing the Plaintiff’s honor, and by threatening the Plaintiff to know the Plaintiff’s incompact relationship to the Plaintiff’s incompacters.
(2) The Plaintiff, due to the Defendant’s above defamation, was forced by the D Company to leave the company, and the Plaintiff and C have retired from the company against the Plaintiff’s will and became at the risk of the failure of the Plaintiff’s home.
(3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages for lost income and mental damage caused by forced retirement of the Plaintiff, which is KRW 30 million.
B. (1) Whether the liability for damages is established or not, the Defendant, on November 21, 2016, made a telephone conversation with the Plaintiff’s volunteer staff F, or directly made a telephone conversation with the Plaintiff’s volunteer staff F, on December 5, 2016, with G and H, and on December 21, 2016, the fact that the Plaintiff’s house was found on December 21, 2016, and the Plaintiff said that the Plaintiff’s house was called as the Plaintiff’s French relationship with the Plaintiff and C, is not a dispute between the parties.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and C were false by the Defendant’s statement to F, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff is with C.