Law Firm Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Counsel for the plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellant]

Attorney Lee Byung-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

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

A. At the time of November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff, as the highest member of the C Party, made a statement at the C Party highest committee, “The C Party’s highest committee, as the C Party’s member, pointed out that it is a simple warning to D government against earthquakes, and that it is a astronomical depth. D shall not go against it. The same shall not be allowed to go against it.” B. Accordingly, the Defendant made the following remarks (hereinafter referred to as the “instant remarks”).

"조금 심하게 이야기해도 괜찮을까요.""무당인가 그랬어요.""그 사람들이 무당, 무당은 그런 소리 하겠지. 정치 최고위원이라는 사람이 하는말이 무당 같고, 목사라고 하는 사람이 하는 말도 무당 같고, 무당이나 하는 소리지 어떻게 지진난 거 가지고 정부 탓하고 과세 탓하고, 그게 무슨. 말이 되는 소리를 해야죠.""무당은 하늘 팔아서 자기 이익 챙기는 사람이잖아요. 사람들 겁주고, 지진이 경고라는 말이나, 참 말이 안 되고, 이런 일이 일어나면 그 지진 때문에 상처받고고통당하는 사람들에게 집중해서 그들을 어떻게 하면 도울까 하는 생각을 해야지.무슨 세금을 내니 안 내니 하는 엉뚱한 소리를 하는지 조금 답답해요.""아니 그걸 뭘 어떻게 생각해요. 잘못됐다고 그러면 빨리 끝날 걸. 그렇게 말을돌린다고 뭐 수습이 되겠어요. 최고위원이라는 표현도 웃기기는 하지만 그냥 최저위원이라 그러면 좋겠네요."

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's statement in this case damaged the plaintiff's social reputation, insults the plaintiff, and violated the plaintiff's personality right by deviating from the limit of expression of opinion as beyond the limit permitted by social norms, and thus, the defendant should pay 3 million won as consolation money for such unlawful act to the plaintiff, and claim payment of 1 million won as part of the lawsuit in this case.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant speech was made in the process of criticism on the public figure, especially the Plaintiff’s public figure, which is a politician, and is merely a simple rumor or a genetic expression, and that the expression is not unlawful because it does not violate the social norms.

B. Determination

(1) Whether defamation constitutes tort

(A) Defamation, which is a tort under the Civil Act, refers to an act infringing upon a social objective evaluation of personal values, such as a person’s character, virtue, reputation, and credit by publicly alleging a fact. As such, an expressive act explicitly expressing a fact to the extent that it may infringe another’s social evaluation, as well as a purely expressing an opinion, may constitute defamation. However, there is no room for a pure expression of opinion to harm another’s reputation. The mere mere expression of an expressive act infringing another’s subjective reputation does not constitute defamation solely on the ground that the said act did not constitute an act of infringing another’s subjective reputation or expressed a critical opinion affecting the social evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da75736, Feb. 14, 2008; 2005Da65494, Apr. 9, 2009).

(B) In light of the above legal principles, the expressions such as 'free' among the contents of the instant statement, 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I',

(2) Whether a tort was committed due to insult or infringement of personal rights

(A) The term “defluence” refers to an expression of abstract judgment or sacrific sentiment that could undermine a person’s social assessment without a statement of fact, and even in cases where an expression of opinion contains especially insulting expressions, if such expression can be deemed an act that does not violate the social norms in light of the sound social norms of the times, its illegality is excluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1433, Jul. 10, 2008; 2008Do8917, Dec. 11, 2008). Moreover, the expression of critical opinion about a public figure through a private opinion is deemed unlawful in principle as it falls under the function of the press. However, in cases where the form and content, etc. of expressive act falls under an insulting and disfasible personal character or infringes on a person’s personal right by going beyond a certain degree of surveillance on another’s personal affairs, whether it is a justifiable person or a political person’s expression of opinion may always be criticized as an unlawful act.

Considering that the function of monitoring and criticism thereof ought not be easily restricted insofar as it does not reach the extent that it is malicious or considerably unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da19734, Aug. 20, 2014). In addition, in setting the limitation between the freedom and honor of the press and the protection of personal rights, if the expressed contents relate to matters of public and social significance, evaluation should be different from those pertaining to matters of private sphere, and restriction on the freedom of the press should be mitigated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37647, Jan. 24, 2003).

(B) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff, at the time of the instant speech, was a public figure as the highest member of H at the time of considering the facts as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff’s statement at the time of the instant speech. The Plaintiff’s statement at the highest committee constituted a public figure since it was made through official duties as a public figure. The Defendant criticizes the Plaintiff’s public statement, and criticizes the Plaintiff’s criticism as to the Plaintiff’s natural disaster, which is the port earthquake, to point out that the Plaintiff’s criticism against the government as the highest member of H’s highest committee is less logical than that of logical, it appears that the Plaintiff’s criticism against the government is unreasonable. Considering the form and content of the act of expression, it is difficult to see that the Defendant’s statement at issue falls under a malicious and definite personal attack, and it is difficult to view it as an unlawful act because it exceeded the Plaintiff’s personal right as a member of H’s freedom, or it is difficult to view it as an unlawful act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the defendant's statement of this case is a tort shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges South Korean Barune

Judges Lee Jin-hee