Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sodo-dong 0

Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Dong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sodo-dong 0

Attorney Park Hyun-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

C. It shall pay 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment.

A. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are the 19th National Assembly members, the Plaintiff belongs to ○○ Party, and the Defendant belongs to ○○ Party.

B. On July 27, 2013, the Plaintiff participated in the exhibition of art works for the 60th century, which was held by the Incheon Metropolitan City in Mana Island, and on July 30, 2013, the Defendant published a letter of name including the content of “the name of this case” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant letter of name”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant referred the plaintiff as "pro-North Korea symbol" through the letter of name of this case. As a result, the plaintiff recognized as a member of pro-North Korea and severely damaged the reputation as a politician. Even if the above expression does not harm the plaintiff's reputation, it constitutes an anti-defasible personal attack against the plaintiff and thus seriously infringed the plaintiff's personality right. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages.

3. Whether to recognize liability for damages;

A. Whether the victim is specified

피고는, 일반적인 사람들로서는 이 사건 성명서 중 " 임 모 국회의원 " 이라는 표현이 원고를 지칭하는 것임을 알 수 없었다고 주장한다. 그런데 명예훼손에 의한 불법행위가 성립하려면 피해자가 특정되어 있어야 하지만, 그 특정을 할 때 반드시 사람의 성명이나 단체의 명칭을 명시해야만 하는 것은 아니고, 사람의 성명을 명시하지 않거나 두문자 ( 頭文字 ) 나 이니셜만 사용한 경우라도 그 표현의 내용을 주위 사정과 종합하여 볼 때 그 표시가 피해자를 지목하는 것을 알아차릴 수 있을 정도이면 피해자가 특정되었다고 할 것인바 ( 대법원 2009. 2. 26. 선고 2008다27769 판결 등 참조 ), 현재 국회의원 중 임씨 성을 가진 사람은 원고를 포함하여 2명뿐이고, 위 정전60주년 예술작품 전시 행사에 참석한 사람 중 임씨 성을 가진 국회의원은 원고뿐이었던 점, 게다가 원고가 1989. 6. 경 평양에서 개최된 세계청년학생축전에 참가한 후 국가보안법위반죄로 처벌받은 사실이 일반인들에게도 비교적 널리 알려져 있는 점 등을 고려하면, 위 " 임 모국회의원 " 이라는 표현이 원고를 지칭하는 것임을 충분히 알 수 있으므로, 피해자가 특정되었다고 할 것이다 .

B. Whether defamation is defamation

1) Defamation, which is a tort under the Civil Act, refers to an act of infringing upon a social objective evaluation of a human value, such as a person’s character, virtue, reputation, and credit, by publicly expressing a fact. In addition, an expressive act explicitly expressing a fact to the extent that it may infringe another’s social evaluation may constitute defamation, and even in the form of expression of opinion or comment, if an assertion of a hidden basic fact, which serves as the basis of the opinion, may constitute defamation if the fact may infringe on another’s social evaluation in light of the overall purport, is implicitly included in the form of expression of opinion or comment. However, the expression of a pure opinion only may not constitute defamation if it infringes on another’s social evaluation (Supreme Court Decision 199Do199).

2. 9. 9. Supreme Court Decisions 98Da31356 Decided January 19, 200, 200Da10208 Decided January 19, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37524, 37531 Decided January 22, 2002, etc.) However, in the name of this case, the part related to the Plaintiff is merely an expression of "a member of the National Assembly who is a symbol of pro-North Korea," and the above expression is merely an expression of the defendant's opinion or comment against the plaintiff, and it is difficult to view it as an expression of specific facts that may infringe the plaintiff's social assessment. Moreover, even if considering the above expression's contents, the remaining part of the name of this case, except the above expression, consists of criticism of the Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor through the front and rear of the above expression, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff's act of publicity or new idea of the identity of North Korea, at all, could not be known.

3) Therefore, this case’s name cannot be deemed as impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation.

C. Whether personal rights are infringed

1) Although it cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that an expressive act expressed a critical opinion against another person, if the form and content of the expressive act constitutes an insulting and definite personal attack or an act of publishing distorted facts going beyond a certain degree of exaggeration about another person’s personal affairs, which constitutes a tort separate from defamation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65494, Apr. 9, 2009, etc.). 2) With respect to this case, the Defendant refers the Plaintiff as a symbol of pro-North Korea, without presenting any specific arguments, without denying the unity of the Republic of Korea as a substitute for the word “pro-North Korea” and being used as a new principal idea of North Korea, in consideration of the Plaintiff’s status or status of the Republic of Korea prior to the closure, etc., the expression “pro-North Korea” constitutes a serious and serious relation to the Plaintiff’s qualification and insult as the Plaintiff’s member of the National Assembly.

I would like to raise an appeal.

3) If so, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the infringement of the plaintiff's personality right through the name of this case.

4. Scope of damages.

The amount of consolation money shall be determined as KRW 2 million in consideration of various circumstances, such as the status of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the background leading up to the Defendant’s presentation of the instant name, the weight of expressions related to the Plaintiff in the instant name, and the content of its expression.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 21, 2013 to March 25, 2014, which is the date of the decision of this case where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation to perform as requested by the plaintiff, since the date of announcement of the statement of this case, which is 2 million won and the date of the decision of this case, which is the date of the illegal act, to the plaintiff.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Type Mai

Judges Lee Jong-sung