(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.2.16.선고 2015가단227539 판결

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from C to February 16, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 10% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 5% interest per annum from C to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

The defendant posted a letter in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as "the notice of this case") in the title of "E" as "E" on the Internet site it operates.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The facts stated in the notice of this case by the plaintiff and the defendant are false. Since the plaintiff's honor was damaged, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiff as compensation for mental suffering.

B. The plaintiff's honor cannot be deemed to have been damaged since the defendant was not the plaintiff nor the plaintiff was specified as the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Whether to specify the object of defamation

In order to establish tort caused by defamation, the victim must be identified, but a person’s name must be specified in the specification, and even if a person’s name is not indicated, if it is possible to identify who is identified in the surrounding circumstances and comprehensive view of the contents of the expression, the victim should be identified (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da36622, May 10, 1994).

In this case, the notice of this case refers to a person who talks about F, a person who uses 'G', and a person who uses 'G', and it is recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleading in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4.

As can be seen, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s name is frequently expressed in the comments on the instant bulletin, it is deemed that as a person visiting the Defendant’s Internet site, he/she knew or could have easily known that he/she was referring to the Plaintiff solely by the said expressions.

B. Whether the act constitutes defamation

Upon examining the contents of the instant notice, the Plaintiff stated that: (a) although mentioning the definition or advanced instruments in front of the public, the Plaintiff’s act is obviously in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff was subject to considerable mental suffering, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising therefrom, since it is obviously obvious that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering due to the Defendant’s tort, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages.

Meanwhile, in a case where a person’s reputation is damaged by the statement of fact, when the Plaintiff claims damages by claiming that the alleged fact is false or false evaluation as the cause of the claim, the burden of proving its falsity lies on the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da58823, Jan. 24, 2008). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the notice in this case is false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and this part of the assertion is rejected

C. Scope of liability for damages

Considering the various circumstances shown in the arguments, such as the contents, methods, and means of the instant notice, the degree of the Plaintiff’s mental damage caused thereby, and the developments leading up to the Defendant’s drafting the instant notice, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as KRW 1,00,000.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000 won as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until February 16, 2016, which is the date of this decision, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified 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.