CONTENTS
- 1. The Client Who Sought Out the Daejeon Attorney
- 2. The Tort Alleged Against the Daejeon Attorney's Client
- 3. The Defense Mounted by the Daejeon Attorney for the Client
- - Daejeon Attorney: “The Client Did Not Record the Call Intentionally”
- - Daejeon Attorney: “The Contents of the Call Did Not Concern Private Life”
- 4. The Judgment Obtained for the Client by the Daejeon Attorney
1. The Client Who Sought Out the Daejeon Attorney
The client visited the firm's Daejeon office with a complaint, explaining that he had been sued for damages.
The client explained that the plaintiff had brought a claim against the client's wife for the return of a loan, and that a judgment had been entered in the plaintiff's favor, fully granting the plaintiff's claim.
The client explained that, while on the phone with the plaintiff, the plaintiff conveyed this information to him, and that, based on it, he provided a recording of the call to his wife.
The client's wife then filed an appeal and submitted the file in question.
The plaintiff argued that the client had committed a tort infringing the right to one's voice and privacy, and that he would have to bear liability for damages.
Saying that he did not know how to resolve this absurd situation, the client sought the attorney's assistance in defending against the lawsuit.
2. The Tort Alleged Against the Daejeon Attorney's Client
The plaintiff in the case filed a 🔗damages lawsuit and argued that the client had committed a tort and should bear liability for damages. Let us examine one by one the torts that the plaintiff alleged the client committed.
▲Supreme Court Judgment of October 13, 2006, 2004Da16280
▲Supreme Court Judgment of July 24, 1998, 96Da42789
Based on the above precedents, the plaintiff argued that recording the contents of a call in secret without the plaintiff's consent, replaying it, and preparing a transcript is, absent other circumstances, an act that unjustly infringes the right to one's voice and the secrecy and freedom of private life guaranteed by the Constitution.
In addition, the plaintiff argued that the contents of the voice information in the call between the plaintiff and the client, which should be protected as the right to one's voice, were disclosed without authorization as evidence in the civil lawsuit, so that matters concerning the plaintiff's private affairs became known to the general public, causing the plaintiff great mental suffering.
3. The Defense Mounted by the Daejeon Attorney for the Client
The attorney mounted the following defense in order to have the plaintiff's claim in the client's case dismissed.
Daejeon Attorney: “The Client Did Not Record the Call Intentionally”
The attorney emphasized that the client had not recorded the contents of the call intentionally.
As a sales representative who had to take calls with a great many people, the client had set an automatic call-recording function on his mobile phone.
The client did not record the call with the plaintiff in order to secure favorable evidence; the call was simply recorded by the automatic recording function.
Daejeon Attorney: “The Contents of the Call Did Not Concern Private Life”
The attorney emphasized that the contents of the call between the client and the plaintiff did not concern private life.
The client merely spoke with the plaintiff on behalf of his wife, who had been sued by the plaintiff over a loan, and discussed matters concerning the loan.
The client used the recording of the call only in his wife's loan lawsuit and did not leak it elsewhere at all.
The attorney argued that, because the contents of the call between the client and the plaintiff did not concern private life, the plaintiff's claim was without merit.
4. The Judgment Obtained for the Client by the Daejeon Attorney
After reviewing the facts of the case, the court rendered the following judgment in the client's case.
2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.
The client was unjustly at risk of having to pay 20 million won after being sued for damages by the plaintiff,
but the attorney, drawing on many years of experience, emphasized that the client bore no liability for damages and succeeded in having the plaintiff's claim dismissed in its entirety.
If you have been sued for damages, as in this case, it is important to prove that you bear no liability.
Because this may be difficult to handle on your own, it is recommended to obtain a Daejeon 🔗attorney referral and request a consultation.
This content is based on actual case studies of Daeryun Law LLC with some adaptations, and the copyright belongs to our firm.
Unauthorized reproduction, duplication, or distribution and other copyright infringements may result in legal action under applicable laws.
