[2] The case holding that the collection and investigation of information about fraud cases by multi-level marketing companies cannot be viewed as falling under the scope of duties of the National Intelligence Service

[3] The case holding that the National Intelligence Service's act of using and managing information in a way that it investigates and collects information on its business and crime suspicion against companies beyond its scope of duty and prepares a report and provides it to investigation agencies and the press, etc. constitutes a tort that infringes on the right of self-information control by the companies, etc. guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus, the State is liable for compensation

[4] In a case where part of the report on the corruption of a multi-level marketing enterprise prepared by a public official belonging to the National Intelligence Service is delivered to the reporter, and most of the reporters cited it as it is, thereby impairing the honor of the above company by preparing and posting a false article on the Internet newspaper, the case holding that the State is liable to compensate for the damage caused thereby

[2] The case holding that even though the fraud case of multi-level marketing companies is a case of a scale that can become a social issue by massing a large number of victims across the nation, the collection of information and investigation about it can not be seen as falling under the duties of investigation agencies, and it does not fall under the scope of duties of the National Intelligence Service

[3] The case holding that the National Intelligence Service's act of investigating and collecting business of the company and its representative, etc. and providing them to investigation agencies and the press, etc. with information beyond the scope of duties stipulated by the law, such as collecting information on foreign countries, collecting domestic security information, insurrection, etc., constitutes a tort that infringes on the right of self-information control of the company, etc., which is the fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus, the State is liable for damages suffered by the company, etc.

[4] In a case where a public official belonging to the National Intelligence Service shows or issues part of the report on the corruption of a multi-level marketing enterprise that was investigated and collected beyond the scope of duties stipulated in the statutes to a press organization, and most of the reporters cited the contents as they are, and publish them on the Internet newspaper, thereby impairing the reputation of the multi-level marketing enterprise and its representative, the case holding that the above public official and reporter are liable for damages as joint tortfeasor with the reporter, and therefore the State is liable for damages to the above company, etc.

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Among the costs of lawsuit, 9/10 of the portion arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne by the plaintiffs, the remainder by the defendant Republic of Korea, and 4/5 of the portion arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 2 shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendant 2.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Plaintiff Primary Network Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) was established on May 23, 2001 and operated a multi-level marketing business for health, cosmetics, and household items. The Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”) is the mother company of the Reasons Group comprised of 25 companies, including Nonparty 1 department store, Nonparty 1, multi-level marketing company, multi-level marketing company, and Seltec Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., the representative director of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., as the chairperson of the Grounds Group, takes overall control of the group’s operation.

B. Defendant Republic of Korea (Defendant 1) collected corruption-related corruption information from June 2004 at the National Intelligence Service’s domestic information collection team (TF), which is the information collection team of the National Intelligence Service under its control, from around June 2004. Based on this, in the information determination room, there is a suspicion that Group takes unjust enrichment by means of delivery manipulation, etc., by establishing a foreign corporation through corporate play, and then raising secret funds through corporate play, and Plaintiff Jeju Capital, etc. expanded its business in order to prevent the company from escaping from its members due to the serious management of the company, thereby leading to corruption. In addition, the information collection team of the National Intelligence Service, which is the information collection team of the National Intelligence Service under its control, entered the internal report on the suspicion of acceptance of bribe as well as the internal report on the status of police officers, personnel affairs, public prosecutor, public prosecutor, employee report of the Korea Fair Trade Commission, etc., and the date and the date of receipt and delivery of money and valuables as the case’s name (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the case’s money and valuables”).

C. Nonparty 1, the head of the intelligence determination office of the National Intelligence Service, reported the instant report to the Cheongbu Department on January 2005, and around January 2006, the contents related to the corruption of the reason group were not emphasized and reported in the media. At around April 2006, Nonparty 2 provided the instant report to Nonparty 2, who was an employee of the National Intelligence Service, the information officer of Grade V, and ordered Nonparty 2 to report the contents of the reason group to the media. Accordingly, Nonparty 2 presented strue two copies of the instant report to Defendant 2, who was a senior relative at ordinary level on April 14, 2006, mentioned the contents of the instant report, and Defendant 2 transferred the instant report to Nonparty 2, who was not a police officer excluding some related persons, prosecutor, public prosecutor, official report of the Fair Trade Commission, and official report of Grade V, and the date and amount of the instant report were transferred to Nonparty 2 (the date and the date on which Nonparty 2 transferred the instant report to Nonparty 2).

D. On April 17, 2006, Defendant 2 reported that 20 police officers, one incumbent public prosecutor, one former public prosecutor, one judge of public prosecutor's office, three judges, one director of the Fair Trade Commission, and official officials who received money and valuables received money from ○○○ News, as the title "(s) group was punished for undiscriminatoryd money amount from 5 million to 500 million won according to class," and the news coverage of ○○○ News was revealed as the result of gathering ○○○ News, and some of the executives and employees of the public prosecutor's office and the Fair Trade Commission were made without exception. Defendant 2 reported that 20 executives and employees of the police, one former public prosecutor, one of former public prosecutor of public prosecutor's office, three judges, one of the directors of the Fair Trade Commission, and one of the officers who received money and valuables were treated as English social news, and published the specific timing and amount of money and valuables in the news report to 201.

E. Since April 2006, the management of the plaintiff Jeju Waterworks and the second-party group was investigated by the prosecutor's office (Seoul East District Prosecutor's Office) regarding multilevel marketing business of the second-party group. The plaintiff Jeju Waterworks was detained by violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes for Fraud, Breach of Trust, Embezzlement, and Door-to-Door Sales Act with other executives of the second-party group around August 2, 2006. On February 20, 2007, it was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment with prison labor, and was sentenced to dismissal at the appellate court on June 21, 2007. The decision of the appellate court was subsequently sentenced to the dismissal of the appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6012 delivered on October 11, 2007).

F. From March 8, 2007, prosecutor's office (Seoul Central Prosecutors' Office) conducted a second investigation in relation to the suspicion of the reason group, and prosecuted the plaintiff's main capital, which was again charged with the crime of misappropriation, violation of the Political Funds Act, etc., and the plaintiff's main capital was charged with the plaintiff's non-party 6 and the deputy head of the news tracking team (title 1 omitted) of March 27, 2009 with money and valuables provided in illegal solicitation in relation to his duties to the non-party 7. The non-party 4 was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment [the case of Seoul Central District Court 2007Da695, 208Gahap391 (combined)] on the grounds that the non-party 4 contributed political funds in a manner that is not provided for in the Political Funds Act.

G. On the other hand, around 2007, the Plaintiff’s main office filed a complaint against Nonparty 8, the representative director of ○○ News Co., Ltd. (name 3 omitted), and Nonparty 2 and Defendant 2, the Director of the National Intelligence Service Act, violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, etc. (Defamation). With respect to the violation of the Act on the Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, the prosecutor’s office did not recognize that the contents of the instant report are difficult to be deemed as confidential under the Act on the Staff of National Intelligence Service or the Criminal Act. As to the defamation of Nonparty 2, the part of the instant report was reported to Defendant 2, and it is difficult to view that there was a public solicitation relation with the defamation, and that there was no evidence to prove that Nonparty 6 did not participate in the instant report from the prosecutor’s office on the ground that the part of Nonparty 2’s report was made under the name of Nonparty 8’s prosecutor on the ground that it did not participate in the instant report.

H. On March 12, 2008, Defendant 2 published the article of this case, which is a false content, and was charged with summary facts, and applied for formal trial upon being notified of a summary order of KRW 5 million and requesting formal trial. Defendant 2 currently (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da4303) is pending.

I. Nonparty 2 was referred to the Disciplinary Committee in relation to the leakage of the instant report, and received a warning from the Director of the NIS on August 31, 2006.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The National Intelligence Service’s investigation and collection of information about the Plaintiffs and the preparation of the instant report based thereon constitutes unlawful information collection activities that deviate from the scope of duties prescribed by the National Intelligence Service Act. Accordingly, it infringed the Plaintiffs’ honor, privacy, business secrets, etc., as well as Defendant 2’s personality rights by providing it to Defendant 2, even though the content of the instant report is false, which infringed upon the Plaintiffs’ honor, reputation, and credit. Accordingly, Defendant Korea is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages arising from such unlawful acts.

B. Nonparty 2, who is a public official of the National Intelligence Service, issued the instant report to Defendant 2 even though he/she knew or could have sufficiently known that the content would be reported if the instant report was provided to Defendant 2, who is the reporter of ○○ News. Defendant 2: (a) most of the contents of the instant report were prepared and published as an article almost false, thereby significantly damaging the honor and credit of the Plaintiffs; and (b) Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 are liable to compensate each of the Plaintiffs for damages arising from the tort as above.

3. The defendant's liability for damages caused by illegal intelligence gathering activities by the National Intelligence Service.

A. Illegal of collecting information about the plaintiffs

(1) Article 3(1) of the National Intelligence Service Act provides, “The National Intelligence Service shall perform the following duties: 1. Collection, compilation, and distribution of overseas information and domestic security information (the anti-government uniform, counter-terrorism, counter-terrorism, and international criminal organization) and 2. Security service for documents, materials, facilities, and regions belonging to national secrets: Provided, That security audit of agencies at various levels is excluded; 3. The security audit of agencies at various levels under the Criminal Act is stipulated as follows: (a) the crime of insurrection and foreign aggression; (b) the crime of insurrection under the Military Criminal Act; (c) the crime of insurrection under the Military Criminal Act; (d) the crime prescribed in the Military Secret Protection Act; (d) the investigation of the crimes prescribed in the National Security Act; and (e) the planning and coordination of information and security services;

According to the facts based on the facts, the report of this case prepared by investigating and collecting the information about the plaintiffs is related to the acquisition of illegal profits through multi-level marketing business by the reason group, the creation of funds, the expansion of business to cover off non-financial funds, the expansion of business to conceal poor business management, and the receipt of large-scale money and valuables from workers, related persons, investigation agencies, and judicial agencies, etc. Even if all of the contents were revealed to be true, it is clear that the information collection activities related to such activities do not fall under any of the duties of the National Intelligence Service under each subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the National Intelligence Service Act, since it is related to fraud, embezzlement, breach of trust, acceptance of bribe, and acceptance of bribe, etc. under the Criminal Act and related special laws.

Therefore, the National Intelligence Service’s act of investigating and collecting information about the Plaintiffs and preparing the instant report is illegal information collection activities beyond the scope of duties stipulated in Article 3(1) of the National Intelligence Service Act.

(2) On the contrary, Defendant Republic of Korea needs to comprehensively interpret the scope of duties of the National Intelligence Service in light of the purpose of its establishment and nature of its duties, etc., which are the national intelligence agency whose main duties are to collect information on national security, as well as the purpose of its establishment and non-disclosure. Moreover, since the concept of national security has changed into a new concept of security that covers all the areas of society, such as economy, commerce, and environment, not only the concept of past national defense or diplomacy, it should be interpreted as an example provision. Article 3(1) of the National Intelligence Service Act should be interpreted as an example provision. Article 3(1) of the Multi-Stage Sales Fraud case of the Second-Party Group, as the multi-level marketing fraud case of the Second-Party Group, is a serious issue that can create the nation and society as a whole, and thus, it is not desirable for the National Intelligence Service to clearly distinguish the scope of its duties from national security and maintenance of order. Furthermore, the instant report is related to large-scale corruption and corruption cases, and thus, the grounds for collecting information and corruption-related public official duty of the Plaintiffs.

Article 37(2) of the Constitution provides that “All freedom and rights of the people may be restricted by Act only where it is necessary for national security, maintenance of order, or public welfare, and even where such restriction may not violate essential contents of freedom and rights.” Here, “national security” means independence of the State, preservation of territory, functions of the Constitution, and maintenance of state agencies established by the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 89Hun-Ga104, Feb. 25, 1992). Since the National Intelligence Service, as a national intelligence agency related to national security, has the possibility of restricting or infringing on the fundamental rights of the people in the course of performing its duties, it is difficult to view that this is merely an example of Article 3(1) of the National Intelligence Service Act stipulating the scope of its duties in accordance with the purport of Article 37(2) of the Constitution, which provides for the scope of its duties. Moreover, even if examining the provisions itself, it is evident that the National Intelligence Service’s provision on the purpose of its establishment and provision of information collection under Article 37(1)1) of the National Intelligence Service Act provides for the purpose of information collection and provision.

Furthermore, in light of the purport of the above constitutional provision, the meaning of national security should be distinguished from the concept of maintenance of order in interpreting the Act on the Restriction of Fundamental Rights of the People. Thus, even if the fraud case caused by multi-level marketing of the reason group is a case of a scale that can become a social problem due to the mass production of many victims across the nation, the collection of information and investigation about it constitutes the duties of the investigative agency, and this does not constitute the scope of duties of the National Intelligence Service.

In addition, Article 56 of the Anti-Corruption Act is merely a general provision that imposes the obligation to report acts of corruption on the general public, and Article 2 of the Anti-Corruption-Related Council Regulation stipulates the director of the National Intelligence Service as an associate member of the Council of Anti-Corruption-Related Agencies. Thus, there is no reason to argue that the scope of duties of the National Intelligence Service extends to corruption and corruption-related cases on the ground of

(3) Furthermore, Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that even if the information collection activities with respect to the Plaintiffs exceeded the scope of the NIS’s duty, the information about the Plaintiffs is related to large-scale fraud, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful when balancing the benefits and losses to be achieved by the infringement.

However, as seen earlier, as long as the information collection activities with respect to the plaintiffs do not fall within the scope of the duties of the National Intelligence Service under the National Intelligence Service Act, it is unlawful, even if the information about the plaintiffs was related to the act of fraud on a national scale, and was engaged in the information collection activities for the public interest purpose of preventing the damage caused by the plaintiffs' criminal act and minimizing the damage caused by the plaintiffs' national economy, its illegality cannot be excluded due to such reasons. In addition, according to the basic facts, the report of this case focuses on the raising and settlement of funds, police officers, prosecutor, judge, etc. of the ground group, and it was found that the above suspicion was distorted or most of the above facts were revealed that the information collection activities of the National Intelligence Service were to be achieved by infringement, and thus, it is difficult to accept the defendant's assertion that the information collection activities by the National Intelligence Service

B. The plaintiffs' damages caused by the plaintiffs' infringement of their right to control self-information

(1) Article 10 of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness. The State shall have the duty to confirm and guarantee the fundamental human rights of an individual." Article 17 of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall not be infringed on the privacy and freedom of private life." These provisions purport not only the passive right that individual private activities are not invaded by others or disclosed without permission, but also the active right that can control one's own information autonomously in today's highly-oriented modern society (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da42789 delivered on July 24, 1998). Such right to control one's own information shall also be recognized as to information related to one's business and other activities, and even if such information is subject to illegal corporate activities or criminal acts, it is not reasonable to limit this constitutional right without being based on legal provisions and due process.

(2) As seen earlier, the National Intelligence Service under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea’s act of using and managing information by going beyond the scope of duties prescribed by the laws and regulations, such as collecting foreign information and domestic security information, investigating and collecting information on the plaintiffs’ business and the suspicion of crimes related thereto, preparing a report thereon, and providing it to investigation agencies and the press, etc., constitutes a tort against the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus, the defendant Republic of Korea is liable for compensating the plaintiffs for damages caused by such act.

(3) As to this, Defendant Republic of Korea asserted that the National Intelligence Service did not know at all at the time of collecting information against the Plaintiffs and that it was collected by the Plaintiffs in the prosecution investigation process following the lapse of a considerable time. Thus, Defendant Republic of Korea asserted that the National Intelligence Service’s collection of information by itself did not have any damage including damage caused by defamation. However, it is deemed that the National Intelligence Service illegally conducted investigation and collected information against the Plaintiffs and provided it to investigation agencies, media, etc., and thereby, the damage related to the Plaintiff Company’s corporate activities and mental damage caused by the Plaintiff’s main capital is a damage caused by the Plaintiffs’ infringement of the right to control self-information. Such damage is not only caused by the Plaintiffs’ awareness of the fact that the National Intelligence Service’s collection was conducted.

4. The defendants' liability for damages caused by the plaintiffs' defamation regarding the news report of the article of this case

A. Joint tort liability between Defendant 2 and Nonparty 2

According to the basic facts, the non-party 2, who is a public official belonging to the National Intelligence Service under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea, presents or deliver part of the report of this case to the defendant 2, who is the reporter of ○○ News, and the defendant 2, citing almost little of the contents of the report of this case, prepared the article of this case which was received as above, and published them in the Internet newspaper, thereby impairing the reputation of the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant 2 and the non-party 2 are liable for compensation for damages arising therefrom as joint tortfeasor with respect to the plaintiffs' defamation caused by the report of this case. Accordingly, the defendant 2 and the non-party 2 are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for

B. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

As to this, Defendant Republic of Korea asserted that Nonparty 2 was justifiable to confirm and report the facts while delivering the instant report to Defendant 2, and that Nonparty 2 did not have an intention of defamation or defamation. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that Nonparty 2 was justifiable to confirm the facts on the sole basis of Nonparty 1’s evidence 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it was legitimate to confirm the facts, and even if the confirmation of facts was lawful, Nonparty 2 cannot be exempted from liability as joint tortfeasor, as long as Nonparty 2 presented part of the instant report to Defendant 2 or made the instant article by giving it.

C. Determination on Defendant 2’s assertion

(1) As to this, Defendant 2 asserted that the contents of the article of this case concerning the public interest are solely for the public interest, and that the contents of the article of this case are not unlawful since there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the article of this case are true or true in light of the overall purport, and that the act of reporting the article of this case is not unlawful.

(2) The instant article is a fact that the instant article provided money and valuables to police officers, prosecutors, judges, and executives of the Fair Trade Commission, and was punished by large-scale street activities. There is no evidence to prove that the instant article had been actually engaged in the receipt of money and valuables and street activities as indicated in the instant article. According to the basic facts, most of the instant articles were found to be false as a result of the prosecutor’s investigation by the prosecution.

Furthermore, in cases of defamation through the report of the media, whether there is a considerable reason for an actor to believe the content of the report is true or not shall be determined in light of the following: (a) whether the actor has made an adequate and adequate investigation to verify the authenticity of the report in full view of various circumstances, such as the content of the alleged fact, the grounds for believing that the report is true, the certainty and credibility of the material, the easiness of factual verification, and the degree of damage to the victim caused by the report; and (b) whether the authenticity is supported by objective and reasonable material or evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35199, May 12, 2006).

According to the evidence No. 7-19 (No. 1-9 of the evidence No. 7), Defendant 2’s preparing and reporting the article of this case without any investigation to verify the authenticity of the report of this case only based on the report of this case, and in the case where the article of this case is subject to a specific receipt of money and valuables and is falsely reported, not only the honor of public officials who received money and valuables, but also the reputation and credit of the reason group which is the provider of this case, it seems that the damage caused by damage to the reputation and credit of the reason group which is the provider of this case seems to be strict. In light of the fact that Defendant 2 prepared the article of this case based on the report of this case prepared by the National Intelligence Service, the national intelligence agency, there is no reasonable ground to believe that its content is true.

5. Scope of liability for damages

A. Damages caused by the plaintiffs' infringement of their right to self-information control (Defendant Republic of Korea)

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the statements in subparagraph 7, No. 7, and No. 1, the scope of information collection against the plaintiffs of the National Intelligence Service seems to have been widened (as a result of the statement No. 1-8 of the evidence No. 1-8, it is recognized that a report of a large amount of 9 pages and 30 pages out of 9 of the part dispatched to this court and investigation agency as evidence No. 1 of this Act is made). Such wide range of information collection by the National Intelligence Service and the investigation agency and press, etc. are likely to have been seriously infringed upon the plaintiffs' right to control the plaintiffs' own information due to the violation of the plaintiffs' right to control the plaintiffs' own information, and the contents of the information collected by the National Intelligence Service are also proved to have been considerably false as a result of investigation. In light of the above, it is reasonable for the defendant Republic of Korea to pay the plaintiffs KRW 10,000,000, respectively, as compensation for damages caused by

(b) Damages caused by defamation (the Defendant);

As seen earlier, the contents of the article of this case were related to the acceptance of money and valuables and suspicions related to the fraud itself through the multilevel marketing business of the reason group, and most of the contents were revealed to be false. In light of the degree of falsity of the article of this case, the ripple effect of the tenet Press media reported by the article of this case, the degree of harm to the reputation and credit of the plaintiffs caused by the false contents, etc., the defendants should pay 10 million won to each of the plaintiffs as compensation for damages caused by defamation.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant Republic of Korea is 20,000,000 won each of the above amounts and after the date of tort (the publishing date of the article of this case) or after April 17, 2006, it is reasonable for the defendant Republic of Korea to dispute about the existence or scope of the duty of performance as requested by the plaintiffs, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act until May 29, 2009, which is the sentencing date of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment, and 10,000,000 won among the above amounts of the defendant Republic of Korea and each of the above amounts, and 10,000,000,000 won from April 17, 2006 to the day of tort, which is an order of this case where it is reasonable for the defendant Republic of Korea to claim for the payment of the remaining amount within 20% per annum from the next day to May 29, 2000.

Judges Doo Motion Pictures (Presiding Judge)