208 Ghana 32378 Damages

P (45 years old, South)

Law Firm Jeong-man, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Na-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

D.(63 years old, South)

Attorney Lee Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

September 8, 2008

October 20, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall publish a correction report in attached Form 1 three times each on the bulletin board of the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education and the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education within three months after the judgment became final and conclusive. If the defendant fails to carry out the above publication within the above period, he shall pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to 100,000 won per day from the day after the above period expires until the completion of payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was appointed as a teacher on May 1, 1971, and served as the principal from March 1, 2003 to August 31, 2007 in Busan Gangseo-gu, and the Defendant served as a teacher in the above XX middle school.

B. On July 13, 2005, the Defendant posted a notice on the bulletin board for questioning and responding to the electronic civil petition counter located on the homepage of the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as the "Office of Education") on July 13, 2005, which was enforced every year after the Plaintiff was appointed as the principal, on the bulletin board of the electronic petition counter located on the homepage of the Busan Metropolitan City Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as the "Office of Education") and posted a notice on the bulletin board for questioning and responding to the participating parties on the homepage of the Busan Metropolitan Office of Education (hereinafter referred to as the "Office of Education") on the 15th day of the same month.

C. On July 19, 2005, the defendant posted the notice in attached Form 3 as the title " 2" on the bulletin board within the Busan Office of Education website.

D. On November 29, 2005, the Defendant posted a notice of the notice in attached Form 4 in the title of "to ask questions on the above bulletin board of Busan Northern District Office of Education about the student's moving-in equipment", and on December 17, 2005, posted the notice of the notice in attached Form 4 in the title of "634 questions and supplementary questions for answers" and "633 supplementary questions for answers".

E. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge of violating the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection against the Defendant’s respective comments posted on the website of the Busan District Office of Education and the Busan Northern District Office of Education. However, on January 25, 2008, the Plaintiff appealed against the Defendant, but the appeal was dismissed on April 30, 2008.

【Reasons for Recognition】

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that among the comments posted on each website of the Busan Northern District Office of Education and the Busan District Office of Education, the plaintiff insultingd the plaintiff who was the principal at the time of school directly or indirectly by disclosing the following contents, or openly spread the facts and false facts, thereby impairing the plaintiff's reputation.

(1) 별지 (2) 기재 게시글 중 '교육감님의 투철한 교육관에 역행하는 비교육적이고 비상식적인 행위가 교장의 독단에 의해 자행해져 다른 지역의 모범 사례가 되고 있는 부산교육에 좋지 않는 오점이 되기에', 방학 중 학교야영활동과 관련하여 '교장 선생님께서는 일방적으로 야영을 허락할 수 없다고 하시기에', '학교의 모든 경영은 교장이 독단적으로 결정할 수 있기에 교장 철학으로 요번부터는 무조건 안된다 하십니다', 수학여행 및 수련활동시 교사의 출장비와 관련하여 '매년 출장비 때문에 건의를 하지만, 교장, 교감, 행정실 등의 답변은 상식적으로 이해하기가 힘듭니다. 아무런 설명 없이, 일방적으로 품목과 금액을 정해 봉투에 넣어 툭 던져주면서 도장을 찍어라고 합니다. 이의를 제기하지만 면박만 당하기 일쑤입니다.', '계약을 할 때 출장비에 대해 선생님들과 의논 없이 마음대로 계약을 해도 되는지요?', '여행사, 수련원에 유리하게 계약을 한다는 것은 잘못된 것뿐만 아니라, 다른 생각의 여지까지 하게 합니다. 또한 오히려 이의를 제기하는 교사를 교감이라는 직위를 이용해 억박하고 협박하는 것은 잘못되어도 크게 잘못된 것이라 생각합니다'

(2) Of the notice in the attached Form 3, "I think that I do not permit the camping with the student for the purpose of interfering with the activities of the students," but I think that I think that I do not permit the camping with the student for the purpose of interfering with the activities of the students, and that I think I think you do not permit the camping with the student for the purpose of interfering with the education travel and training sessions of the teachers, because I think I would like to know that I will be without any conditions for the same reasons as I would like to make the student's and the teacher's activities on the day of the school like our school? I would like to say I would like to say that I will be able to make a decision on the student's and the teacher's activities according to the schedule? I would like to say I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like not permit the student's activities on the part of the students of the school, and if you do not have any explanation?

(3) Of the notice in [Attachment 4] List, "I, in the low-income school administrative office, set it on the basis that it is not in accordance with the Regulations on Travel Expenses for Public Officials of the Civil Service and others," and "I, in the above argument of the school authorities, have the ability to pay the class operating expenses at one rate."

(4) Of the notice in [Attachment 5] List, “A school” was clearly believed to be a regulation other than the Civil Service Commission’s travel expense regulation, which is required to give detailed explanation of travel expenses, and the explanation is not changed for several years, and the class operation expenses are not paid in a lump sum and are provided to the submission of a plan. It is true that the class operation expenses are not permitted for the reason that it has already been, and it is true that the school authority has determined the travel expenses of the relevant teacher without knowledge. The reason why the school authority set the travel expenses to the public.

2. Determination as to the claim for damages

A. Whether the victim is specified

Although the victim is specified in order to constitute a tort by murdering, defamation (including insult; hereinafter the same shall apply), if it is possible to identify the identity of the victim in light of the contents of the expression, it is not necessarily required to specify a person’s name or the name of an organization, but it is possible to identify the identity of the victim in light of the nature of the expression without specifying a person’s name or using two characters or social services, or considering the contents of the expression in light of the surrounding circumstances.

Meanwhile, it is difficult to interpret that the content of defamation by so-called collective labeling is against a specific person who belongs to the group, and in principle, defamation against each member of the group does not constitute defamation since the degree of criticism does not reach the degree of impact on the social evaluation of the members since the degree of criticism has reached the individual member. However, in exceptional cases, if it is deemed that the number of members is small to the extent that it is regarded as an individual member or that it is referred to an individual member within the group in light of the surrounding circumstances at the time, etc., it shall be deemed that the individual member within the group is specified as a victim, and the specific criteria shall include the size of the group, the nature of the group, and the status of the victim within the group.

With respect to the instant case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Health Team and each of the evidence mentioned above alone are sufficient to recognize that each of the posting materials mentioned in the attached Forms (2) and (3) and the posting materials mentioned in the attached Forms (4) and (5) has been made up for the Plaintiff. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without having to examine it.

B. Whether defamation is established

Defamation refers to an objective evaluation that is received from society with respect to personal values, such as a person’s character, virtue, reputation, and credit, and defamation refers to all acts that undermine the social evaluation of a person’s reputation. In order to establish tort due to defamation, a statement of specific facts must be made that may undermine the social evaluation of the victim. Here, a statement of fact in this context is not limited to cases where a fact is directly expressed, but is not limited to cases where a fact is directly expressed, and even in cases of indirect and roundive expressions, it is sufficient to suggest the existence of such fact in light of the overall purport of the expression, and thereby, it is possible to establish the existence of a specific person’s social value or evaluation to the extent that the social evaluation of the specific person might be infringed.

On the other hand, whether the pertinent expression explicitly expresses a fact or expresses an opinion or comment should be determined by whether the pertinent expression explicitly or implicitly expresses a specific matter regarding another person, which can determine its existence with evidence, etc.

In addition, whether a certain expressive act impairs a specific person’s reputation should be determined depending on not only the ordinary meaning of the words used in the expression, the specific contents of the expression, but also the overall flow of the expression, in consideration of the objective contents of the expression, whether the contents of the expression undermine the social assessment of a specific person.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the part concerning camping activities in the list of the attached Forms (2) and (3) falls under defamation, and there is no intention of defamation to the defendant, or that the plaintiff's reputation was damaged due to the part as stated in the above basic facts. Rather, according to the above basic facts, the whole purport of the mentioned part of the case is to deny it by itself on the ground that the parents of camping activities were opposed to the class during the vacation, which was implemented as an annual event even after the plaintiff was appointed as the principal, and to correct it by filing a petition with the Office of Education, which is a superior institution, while seeking solutions for the reasons for denial. For the purpose of this article, it seems that the part of the mentioned part of the case conforms to objective facts, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant's opinion on the "non-educational and unilateral", and it is reasonable to see that the part of the statement of this case is an expression of the plaintiff's opinion or a corrective statement, which is a mere expression of the plaintiff's opinion.

The plaintiff may request the defendant to post a correction report on the bulletin board of the Busan District Office of Education and the Busan Northern District Office of Education, which the defendant posted a criticism against the plaintiff as an appropriate measure for the plaintiff's restoration of honor. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the remaining part of the notice except the part of this case in attached Form 2 (2) through (5) is against the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to support that the contents of this case are obviously false and that the part of this case is consistent with objective facts as seen earlier. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-won