Plaintiff 1 and 35 others (Law Firm Woo, Attorney Kim Sung-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Han-acom and three others (Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 19, 2014

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap542086 Decided November 20, 2013

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court as to Defendant Han-Gyeong.com, the part against the Plaintiffs falling under the part ordering payment under paragraph (2) below shall be revoked.

2. Defendant Han-Gyeong.com shall pay the Plaintiffs (attached Form 1) the amount corresponding to the stated “personal amount” and the amount calculated by applying 5% per annum from January 13, 2012 to February 6, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. A. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed, and the plaintiffs' appeals against the Korean Economic Examination Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

B. The remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiffs 10 are dismissed, respectively, as to the appeal against the defendant Lee E-N and E-N Plus Co., Ltd. and E-N Plus.

4. A. 30% of the total litigation costs incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant Han-acom is borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder 70% is borne by the defendant Han-acom.

B. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant Korean Economic Examination Co., Ltd. are assessed against the plaintiffs.

C. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs 10 and the defendant Eul-N, and Eul-Nplus are assessed against the above plaintiffs.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Defendant Han-Gyeong.com and the Korea Economic Examination Co., Ltd. pay to each of the Plaintiffs the amount corresponding to the “amount of No. 1” as stated in the “amount of No. 1”, and the amount calculated on January 13, 2012 (it is evident that the Plaintiff is a clerical error, although the petition of appeal was written on January 31, 2012) through the delivery date of a duplicate of the instant complaint, 5% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. A. The defendant corporation and E.N. shall pay the remaining plaintiffs (attached Form 1) with the amount corresponding to the amount stated in the "amount of claim No. 1" among the corresponding amounts stated in the "amount of claim No. 1" and the amount corresponding to the "amount of claim No. 2" from January 13, 2012 to the delivery date of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of claim and the cause of claim of this case (the plaintiff stated in the petition of appeal as the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint, but it is obvious that it is a clerical error; hereinafter the same shall apply) 5% per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment, and 20% per annum.

B. or on its own initiative, Defendant Han-chul Co., Ltd. shall pay the remaining plaintiffs (excluding Defendant Han-gucom, Korea Economic Newspapers Co., Ltd., and Plaintiff 10) / [Attachment 1] of the corresponding amount stated in the “amount of Claim 1” as “amount of Claim 1” and the corresponding amount as stated in the “amount of Claim 2” from January 13, 2012 to the date of delivery of the copy of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 48, Gap evidence Nos. 49 through 54, Gap evidence Nos. 58 and 72 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap's non-party 1 (non-party: the non-party)'s written testimony and the whole purport of oral argument:

[1] Nonparty 1’s fraud

Around October 201, Nonparty 1 advertised Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, etc. at a discount of 25% and advertised as if they were delivered in three months to six months, and then conspired to obtain money by fraud in a way that they did not send the other merchandise coupons.

In November 201, Nonparty 1 registered his/her business under the trade name of “○○○○○○○○○○” with the electronic commerce of clothing and miscellaneousization as a type of business (the business registration certificate was written on April 1, 201, but Nonparty 1’s business registration certificate was written on April 1, 201, and Nonparty 1 was the “○○○○○○○○○○○○○” and the business registration was changed to the “○○○○○○” in November 201 for the purpose of committing frauds through which he/she conspired.

On November 201, 201, Nonparty 1 paid the cost of opening an Internet site to a website-making company, and created “△△△△△△△△△△△△△” website on December 1, 201, and opened a “(Internet address omitted)” (hereinafter “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△”) on December 1, 201.

On November 27, 2011, Nonparty 1 began selling merchandise coupons through △△△△△△△ website. From around that time, from January 27, 201 to January 1, 201, Nonparty 1 posted an advertisement stating “I, from the lowest 12% to the highest 25%, sell merchandise coupons at discount. When a merchandise coupon is paid in advance, I will deliver merchandise coupons in installments once every six months at a minimum of three months from the highest 3 months to the highest 6 months according to the discount sales rate, and then acquired merchandise coupons proceeds in a manner that does not deliver merchandise coupons only a part of merchandise coupon to persons who have deposited merchandise coupons, or deliver merchandise coupons at all.”

From December 5, 2011 to January 9, 2012, 201, the Plaintiffs ordered merchandise coupons through △△△△△△△△△△△ website and deposited money for merchandise coupons with Nonparty 1. However, the Plaintiffs suffered damage by deceiving only a part of the ordered merchandise coupons or obtained delivery at all, which is equivalent to the difference between the amount of the merchandise coupon and the amount received.

○ The payment date and amount of the Plaintiffs’ merchandise coupon, the amount of merchandise coupon received, and the details of the amount of damage are as specified in attached Form 2.

○ Nonparty 1 was sentenced to six years of imprisonment in Busan District Court Decision 2013Da1937, etc., and the Prosecutor’s appeal on the appeal of the Busan District Court Decision 2013No3178 was accepted and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment. On July 10, 2014, the Supreme Court Decision 2014Do5251, which was the final appeal, dismissed Nonparty 1’s appeal and became final and conclusive eight years of imprisonment.

[2] Awarding a small and medium enterprise brand for △△△△△△

Defendant Han-sung.com Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han-sung”) operated “W.hakyung.com” (hereinafter “W.h.h.kyung.com”) as an Internet economic news site. The employee called Nonparty 1 at the end of November, 201 and called “W.h.kyung.com” (hereinafter “W.h.h.m. site”). Around November, 201, the employee called Nonparty 1 for an article on △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and

On December 2, 2011, Nonparty 1 sent a “written request for partnership” with the content that he/she requests Defendant Hanyeong-docom to select △△△△△△ as a water company eligible for branding small and medium enterprises.

On December 5, 2011, 201, Defendant Han-Gyeong.com selected △△△△△△△△ as a water company for the social money of small and medium-sized enterprises branded in the second half of the 2011, and announced this on the relevant website (htp://ebp.h.h.h.kyung.com).

After ○○, Nonparty 1 displayed pop-up shop that advertises the fact of winning the above small and medium enterprise brand subject to △△△△△△△, and posted the contents in the company presentation column of the same site.

In addition, the non-party 1 puts an answer to believe and ordering that he/she is an ISO-accredited company and received a small and medium-sized brand.

[3] Publication of articles concerning △△△△△△△

On the basis of the draft articles written by Non-Party 4 (Attached Form 5) prepared and provided by Non-Party 5 of △△△△△△△△△, Defendant Han-Gyeong posted an article written in [Attached Form 3] (hereinafter referred to as “instant article 1”) on the website around December 5, 201 as follows:

In relation to the publication of the instant article 1, Nonparty 1 paid approximately KRW 2.4 million to Defendant Han-Gyeong.

○ The border site on which the article 1 of this case was posted is the Internet homepage of the defendant Korean Economic Examination Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Korean Economic Examination") that published a daily Korean Economic Examination.

On the other hand, on the other hand, on December 20, 201, Defendant Incorporated Co., Ltd. and Ethioper (hereinafter “Defendant Ethioper”) operating “www.yn.co.co.kr” (hereinafter “Ethn”) on the Internet news website, published the article described in [Attachment 4] (hereinafter “instant article 2”).

○ The website on which the instant article 2 was posted is the Internet homepage of the Defendant Loenna Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Loenna”) that operates the YTN, a broadcast medium specialized in news reports, concurrently.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Han-Gyeong.com

(a) Joint tort or aiding and abetting;

Article 760 (1) of the Civil Act provides that when several persons jointly commit a tort, they shall be jointly and severally liable to compensate for such damage, and Article 760 (3) of the same Act provides that an aided person or aided person shall be deemed a collaborative act.

Article 760(3) of the Civil Act provides that an aided or an assistant shall be deemed a collaborative act, thereby imposing liability as a joint tortfeasor. Aiding or abetting refers to all direct or indirect acts facilitating a tort. It includes not only cases by commission but also cases where a person obligated to act makes it easy for the tortfeasor to commit a tort due to omission that does not take various measures to prevent it. Aiding or abetting or aiding and abetting and abetting and abetting and abetting such tort can be interpreted under the Civil Act, which stipulates negligence as a matter of principle for the purpose of compensating for damages, unlike the Criminal Act. In such cases, negligence refers to a violation of this duty on the premise that the aided or abetting has a duty of care not to assist a tort. In order to hold the aided or abetting liable as a joint tortfeasor, a proximate causal relationship exists between aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting and the victim’s tort. Whether proximate causal relationship exists should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the impact of aiding and abetting caused by negligence on the victim, the degree of contribution to the formation of the victim, and the degree of damages caused by himself/herself (see Supreme Court Decision 2007. 297.

(b) Advertisement media and news-type advertisements;

1) In principle, an advertiser is an advertiser, and the advertising media is merely an advertisement written by the advertiser in his/her own medium. Therefore, the advertising media cannot be held liable for unlawful advertisements.

However, an advertisement is completed only when there is an act of posting in addition to the act of producing the advertiser. Any information that does not have a means of transmission is not an information, and the advertising media play a key role in the advertisement. In addition, in the case where the media such as newspapers and broadcasting are the advertisement media, trust arising from the belief of fair news media according to high information collection capacity is given even if it is a private company, and such trust affects consumer's choice of goods. For this reason, the advertiser is advertising with a higher amount of consideration as the one of the media with higher trust, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no obligation to investigate and confirm the contents of the advertisement.

However, there is no obligation to investigate and confirm the same degree of authenticity as that of a report with respect to advertisements which are the economic basis of the economic existence of an advertising medium, and the obligation to investigate and confirm the performance, shape, etc. of goods and services shown in the advertisement cannot be generally assumed. Accordingly, in a case where there is a special reason to suspect the authenticity thereof, in a case where the existence of an advertisement works as an important means of deception in the formation of the victim’s trust and where the advertising media can easily prevent damage, etc., if the existence of the advertisement act as an important means of deception in the formation of the victim’s trust and the advertisement media can easily be prevented, it bears the obligation not to provide false, unlawful or unfair advertisements to the reader. The legal basis of such obligation lies in the duty to protect the reader as stipulated in the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc. and the duty to ensure safety

2) Along with the development of the advertising techniques, advertisements that borrowed the type of an article, namely, news-type advertisements, are adopted. The characteristic of news-type advertisements is that the advertisement gives the credibility of the article while taking the form of the article. These news-type advertisements have a big advantages. This may not only infringe upon the rights and interests of the readers by making it difficult to distinguish between the article and the advertisement, but also threaten the existence of the newspaper itself as the readers do not trust pure news.

For this reason, Article 6 of the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc., which was enforced at the time of the instant case, provides that “(i) newspaper enterprisers, online newspaper enterprisers, and online news service providers shall endeavor to make the basic principles of editing or production comply with the interests of their readers. ③ The editors of newspapers and online newspapers and online news service providers shall clearly separate news articles from advertisements so that readers do not confuse news articles and advertisements.”

Article 11 of the Act on the Freedom and Guarantee of Functions of Newspapers, Etc., which had been enforced before the above Act, also stipulates that "(1) periodical business operators shall endeavor not to infringe unreasonably on the rights and interests of readers due to advertisements, and may refuse the publication in cases where it is judged that the contents of advertisements are obviously detrimental to social ethics, other persons' honor or fundamental rights. (2) The editor of periodicals shall clearly separate and edit to prevent confusion between news articles and advertisements."

Therefore, as a newspaper company, the readers are obliged to clearly separate and edit news articles and advertisements to prevent confusion between news articles and advertisements, and as advertising is similar to the news articles, the media company is obliged to perform the duty of care to control the investigation and confirmation of news articles.

3) According to the above evidence, the phrase “advertisement” is not entirely indicated in the middle or surrounding areas of the instant article No. 1, and rather, the phrase “a copy” is indicated, and Defendant Han-gecom deleted the instant article 1 after Nonparty 1’s fraud was known, and it can be acknowledged that the name of the article was also deleted.

Therefore, the article 1 of this case aims to promote the sale of goods and services rather than news or comment, and is practically advertising, but it is an article-type advertisement that borrowed the form of article. As such, Defendant Han-Gyeong, who posted the article 1 of this case, bears more responsibilities than those to be borne by the advertising media in the general advertisement above.

(c) Duty of care;

1) The above evidence and the circumstances examined based on the facts of recognition are as follows.

The legal basis of imposing the duty of care is the legal norms such as the Constitution, laws, and orders, contract norms based on contract, precedents based on precedents, and other social norms.According to the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc., Defendant Han Gan.com bears the duty of reader’s protection and the duty of classification of articles, advertisements. The duty of care to prevent any possible damage to others in engaging in his occupation or business under social norms (duty of safety) also deals with the contents of the duty of care.

In addition, as argued by Defendant Han-Gyeong.com, the granting of a small and medium enterprise brand is different from the news report, and the discretion of Defendant Han-Gyeong. However, the fact that Defendant Han-Gyeong is obligated under the good faith principle to select a water company according to fair standards is recognized. In particular, there is room to accept that the name of the small and medium enterprise brand subject to the small and medium enterprise brand subject to the small and medium enterprise brand subject to the small and medium enterprise brand subject to the small and medium enterprise brand subject to the small and medium enterprise brand subject to the small and medium enterprise brand is relatively superior or reliable to the general public in the relevant type of business, and it is obvious that there is such duty of care in that

In the event that Nonparty 4, who is an employee of △△△△△△, served as an article for the promotion of △△△△△△△△, and then served the contents of the advertisement that Defendant Han-Gyeong. The employees of the Defendant Han-Gyeong.com posted after rhythizing the contents of the advertisement. As such, unlike other advertisements that publish the advertisement draft prepared by the advertiser, Defendant Han-Gyeong, an advertising medium, is the preparing entity of the instant first engineer.

In addition, Defendant Han-gu.com lending the type of article rather than the form of advertisement but did not indicate that it is an advertisement.

In the case of the Internet commercial transactions, the risk of consumers being unable to receive goods or services from the other party is greater than in the case of general transactions, and in fact there are many frauds.

In the Internet commercial transactions, the credibility of the trading partner is considered as much as the price of the goods is not high due to the above risk. As long as the trading partner is not a company that has been trusted to the public, it is common to go through the process of searching and verifying whether the company that sells the goods is a reliable company on the Internet.

In this situation, it can be easily predicted that the risk of fraud is realized if the Internet commercial company gives the Internet commercial company the date of opening the business, transaction performance, etc. differently from the fact, and the victim of fraud will occur.

In a case where an Internet commercial enterprise is allowed to verify the performance, shape, etc. of an object or to verify the credibility of an online commercial enterprise, it cannot be generally imposed on the advertising medium. However, the procedure can be conducted by obtaining a business registration certificate or transaction performance document to verify whether the Internet commercial enterprise has made a false representation in relation to the year of establishment, transaction performance, etc., and thus, no separate cost or burden is required, while such simple confirmation procedure alone can remove the considerable portion of the Internet commercial transaction risk and remove the risk.

2) According to the above circumstances, the publication of the instant article No. 1 bears the duty of care not to assist Nonparty 1’s tort using Internet commercial transactions, in accordance with the duty to protect the readers, the duty to separate advertising and news articles, and the duty to ensure safety in the course of performing his duties, in a case where Defendant Han-gu.com, an advertising medium, is advertising goods or services that may easily anticipate risks or illegality, and where the existence of advertisements is an important means of deception in the formation of the victim’s trust, and advertising media can easily prevent damage.

C. Violation of duty of care

1) The above evidence, the facts of recognition, and the statements of Gap evidence Nos. 61 through 64, and the facts as examined by the court of first instance and the court of this court's fact-finding with respect to the ICTR Certification Board as follows.

In the process of the examination, Defendant Han-Gyeong.com does not clearly indicate which companies were subject to the branding of small and medium enterprises, and what marks △△△△△△ have been allocated in any item in the process of the examination.

An ISO901 certification means that the production and supply system of the company in question conforms to the standardized standards, and does not guarantee the quality of products and services produced and supplied by such system. The instant first engineer posted by Defendant Han-cacom is a situation that is attributable to some social intelligence companies, such as old companies whose source is unclear, and without any explanation on certification of the ISO9001 certification, it is an article-type advertisement with the content that “the social industry is also an ISO901 certification, such as companies obtaining ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△,” and it can be understood to the effect that the general public is not proven that the instant first engineer was not a social news machine company by obtaining O901 certification from ○○○○○○○○○.

In addition, even if ○○○○ received certification from ISO9001, it cannot be used as the basis for the award, even though it is not the case where ○○○○○ received such certification.

In the article 1 of this case, the non-party 1 operated by the non-party 1 received the certification of ISO901, and furthermore, there are many social money sites, and △△△△△△ is a company which has received consumers' trust from the offline. However, in the "partnership request" sent by the non-party 1 to the defendant Han-Gyeong. However, even though the "△△△△△" stated, the defendant Han-sung entered the false statement as the company that △△△△△△△△△ received consumers' trust from the offline."

In the process of publishing the first article of this case, Nonparty 4, who prepared the draft of the article described in attached Form 5, stated that he did not receive any inquiry from Defendant Han Gan.com or received any request for confirmation of fact.

In addition, Defendant Han-Gyeong.com presented the first engineer of this case while awarding the small and medium-sized enterprise brand subject to payment from Nonparty 1.

4. Nonparty 4 stated that “A company operating a social company called △△△△△△△ is ○○○○○○, and the registration of the business entity called ○○○○○○○○○○○○ is made on April 1, 201, but, on or before December 1, 201, it did not enter into a gift certificate discount sales business under the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and it was known that the business was commenced first in the name of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on November 1, 201 after employing employees who majored in the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and on December 1, 2011, employing employees who

In addition, △△△△△△△ was opened on December 1, 201, which was four days before the △△△△△△△, and the time when Defendant Han-sung selected △△△△△△△△ as a merchant of small and medium enterprises branding, and published the instant first engineer on December 5, 201. In addition, △△△△△△△△△△ was in a situation where gift certificates were not delivered once at that time.

As Nonparty 1 delivered only part of the merchandise coupons purchased by the Plaintiffs and escaped to the Philippines, Defendant Han-Gyeong Marinecom deleted △△△△△△△△ from the list of the water companies subject to Han-acom brand, and also deleted the first engineer of this case.

2) According to the above circumstances, in posting the instant article No. 1, Defendant Han Gung.com violated its duty of care not to assist Nonparty 1’s illegal act using Internet commercial transaction in accordance with its own duty of protection, its own duty of protection, its distinction between advertising and articles, and its duty of safety.

D. The proximate causal relation

1) The above evidence and the circumstances examined based on the facts of recognition are as follows.

In the early page of the △△△△ website, Nonparty 1 displayed pop-up shop that advertises the award subject to small and medium enterprise brand, and posted the contents thereof in the company presentation column of the same website. Nonparty 1 also posted an answer to the following: (a) Nonparty 1 was an ISO-accredited company on the website of △△△△△△△△△△, and was awarded a small and medium enterprise brand.

C. Nonparty 1 entered a key search advertisement (in the event that a user of the Internet search service enters the search language in the search box of the portal providing the search service, an advertisement contract is concluded with the portal site and the contents of the advertiser’s advertisement related to the search language are indicated in the search result of the search result of the user of the search service) was recognized by the Plaintiffs themselves through such search and transaction with Nonparty 1. Thus, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiffs confirmed whether Nonparty 1’s company was trusted through the instant first engineer indicated as a result of the Internet search service search as well as the key search advertisement (the fact of the brand subject matter was publicized on the △△△△△△△ site).

The purpose of Nonparty 1’s filing of an application for a small-medium-sized enterprise brand subject and requesting the publication of articles was to make this consumer trust in the △△△△△△△ by planning fraud from the beginning to December 5, 201. The purchase order of the gift certificates by △△△△△△△△△△ was merely KRW 60,000,000,000 from December 5, 2011, where the instant article 1 was published, to December 20, 2011.

A △△△△△△ was also deleted from the list of small and medium enterprise-sized businesses eligible for the brand, and the first engineer was also deleted.

2) In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the degree of violation of the duty of care and the details of Nonparty 1’s fraud, it is recognized that there is a proximate causal link between the publication of the instant article No. 1 of Korea Seacom and the illegal act of Nonparty 1 using the Internet commercial transaction. In addition, it is recognized that there is a proximate causal link between the publication of the instant article No. 1 of Defendant Korea Seacom and the occurrence of the Plaintiffs’ damages caused by the instant illegal act by Nonparty 1.

(e) Liability for damages;

1) Defendant Han-Gyeong.com bears tort liability due to breach of the duty of care as seen earlier. According to the respective statements and the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 7 through 48, and 53, the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs are as stated in [Attachment 2].

Defendant Han-Gyeong.com asserts that there is no causal link between Defendant Han-Gyeong.com’s delivery of some of the merchandise couponss and Defendant Eul-Nr posted the article No. 2 of this case, and the Plaintiffs subsequently remitted the money for merchandise coupons by reliance on such delivery and article, etc.

However, in the course of causing damages to the Plaintiffs due to Nonparty 1’s fraudulent conduct, the violation of the duty of care to the instant article 1 was contributed to a certain portion, and the proximate causal relation between the Plaintiffs’ damages and the Defendant Han-acom’s breach of the duty of care was established prior to the examination. As such, it cannot be said that the causal relation is cut off even in cases where the damages incurred to the Plaintiffs are combined with other causes. Therefore, the above assertion by Defendant Han-acom is without merit.

2) However, even though △△△ did not sell the gift certificates similar to cash excessively in comparison with other companies, it cannot be said that there is no negligence since it was believed and purchased gift certificates. The purchase of excessively large amount of gift certificates by the △△△△△ Plaintiffs is not allowed to assert comparative negligence on the grounds of the Plaintiffs’ negligence. However, in full view of the various circumstances shown in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to limit the liability of Defendant Han-Gyeong Marinecom to 40% of the total amount of damages, without such grounds, by taking into account the following factors: (a) Defendant Han-sung’s compensation for damages can be assessed together with Nonparty 1 (i.e., the overall assessment with Nonparty 1; and (b) and other circumstances indicated in the argument in this case.

3) Therefore, Defendant Han-Gyeong.com is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 13, 2012 to February 6, 2015, which is the date when the plaintiffs remitted the amount corresponding to the items stated in [Attachment 1] and after the date when the plaintiffs remitted the amount of merchandise coupons, and as requested by the plaintiffs, it is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence and scope of the duty performed by Defendant Han-Gyeong.com from January 13, 2012 to February 6, 2015, and from the next day to the date when the payment is made.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Lee Ba-man

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant 1 posted the article No. 2 of this case’s false content intentionally or by negligence on the Ethnent website, thereby facilitating the implementation of the part of the article No. 2 of this case’s tort among Non-Party 1’s tort, and thus, Defendant 1 and each joint tortfeasor of Non-Party 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the rest of the plaintiffs”) except Plaintiff 10, as the joint tortfeasor of Non-Party 1 and each joint tortfeasor of Non-Party 1, are liable to compensate for damages (attached Form 1) suffered by the plaintiffs due to the tort (hereinafter referred to as “amount of claim No. 2”).

B. Determination

1) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant ABO posted the instant No. 2 article with the knowledge of Nonparty 1’s tort.

Among the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' assertion that they purchased gift certificates from December 20, 201, which had been published by the second engineer of this case, was that the above plaintiffs believe the second engineer of this case and traded with the non-party 1, and thus, it cannot be recognized that proximate causal relation between the second engineer of this case and the damage of the above plaintiffs cannot be acknowledged. Thus, it is without merit in this point.

2) In a case where there is a special reason to suspect the authenticity of the content of an advertisement, in the event that an advertisement advertises goods or services that may easily anticipate risks or illegality, only if the existence of the advertisement works as an important means of deception in the formation of the victim’s trust, and the media can easily prevent damage, the advertisement bears the duty of investigating and verifying the content of the advertisement. However, as seen earlier, if an advertisement is prepared in violation of the duty of distinguishing the contents of the advertisement from the contents of the advertisement, the duty of care is strengthened.

Defendant A. The first part of the article 2 of this case stated “this material is the business information provided by the relevant company.” The location of the article 2 of this case is “business information”, but the author of the article 2 of this case was not indicated separately, and the article 2 of this case was not indicated. Thus, it cannot be said that Defendant A.I.D. was likely to mislead Defendant A.I.D. as being an ordinary reader, that the article 2 of this case was prepared by subject to due care and investigation duty necessary for the news report of newspapers.

Therefore, unlike Defendant Han-Gyeong, who published news advertising in violation of the duty to separate advertising and news articles, the liability for damages is recognized as an advertising medium where special circumstances are acknowledged, such as where Defendant Han-Gyeong, Inc., at the time of posting the instant article No. 2, should have doubtful doubts as to the authenticity of the content thereof. However, as at the time of posting the instant article No. 2, the instant article No. 1 was posted on Defendant Han-Gyeong Seacom’s website at the time of posting the instant article No. 2, and the gift certificate delivery was being carried on around December 20, 201, it cannot be said that Defendant LoN bears the duty to investigate and verify the authenticity of the content of the instant article No. 2.

Furthermore, Defendant Han-Gyeong did not grant brand eligibility, did not recommend Nonparty 1 to publish articles, and did not receive the price for publication of articles, so it is difficult to recognize the violation of the duty of care differently from Defendant Han-Gyeong.

3) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion on the defendant Eul-Nitus is without merit.

4. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Korean Economic Examination and Ethicalian

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Defendant Korea Economic Newspapers (hereinafter “Korea Economic Newspapers”) carried their trade name, “Korea economy,” and Defendant Han-Gyeong. As such, Defendant Korea Economic Newspapers (hereinafter “Korea Economic Newspapers”) permitted posting Internet articles, Defendant Korea Economic Newspapers bears the responsibility for aiding and abetting that facilitates the act of name lending (Article 24 of the Commercial Act) through Defendant Han-Gyeong Marinecom’s tort (Article 760(3) of the Civil Act).

Defendant Loenna also allows Defendant Loenna to publish the first engineer of this case on its Internet homepage using his trade name, thereby facilitating Nonparty 1’s tort and aiding and abetting Defendant Loener’s tort. As such, Defendant Loenna also is liable as the nominal owner or joint tortfeasor.

B. Determination

1) The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act is to protect a third party who misleads the nominal lender as the other party with respect to the obligation arising from the transaction of the nominal lender and the other party, and to protect the credibility, name, etc. of the nominal lender. In the case of a tort, even if the victim misleads the nominal lender as the nominal lender, there is no causal relationship between such misunderstanding and the occurrence of damage. In this case, the nominal lender cannot be held liable for the fiduciary relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da55621, Mar. 24, 1998).

Since the plaintiffs did not suffer damage due to the illegal acts that had the appearance of the above defendants' transactions, the plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit without further review.

2) In order for an operator on the Internet homepage to be held liable for damages caused by defamation when he/she neglects the contents posted on the electronic bulletin board that he/she manages, he/she shall be held liable for damages caused by defamation. Whether he/she is liable for damages shall be determined by taking into account the following factors: (a) the purpose of the notice, content, period and method of posting, degree of damages caused by the posting, relationship between the bulletiner and the victim, whether there is a demand for counterargument or deletion, etc.; (b) the nature and size of the relevant site; (c) the degree of public disclosure; (d) the time when the operator knew or could have known of the contents of the notice; and (e) the technical and economic difficulty of deletion, etc., on the sole basis of the fact that the notice was posted on the bulletin board provided by the operator and the operator knew or could have known of the contents of the notice (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da7194, Jun. 27, 2003).

Therefore, even if Defendant Han-Gyeong.com’s articles 1 and 2 of this case contain unlawful contents, and Defendant Korea Economic Newspapers, and Ethienna’s articles 1 and 2 of this case knew or could have known that they were posted on its website, such circumstance alone cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting Korea Economic Newspapers and Ethienna.

3) The plaintiffs' assertion on this part is without merit.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims against defendant Han-Gyeong.com are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit, and the remaining claims against the defendants shall be dismissed as they are without merit.

However, since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to Defendant Han-Gyeong Seacom differs from this conclusion, the part against the plaintiffs corresponding to the above recognized amount shall be revoked, and the payment of the above recognized amount shall be ordered to Defendant Han-Gyeong. The plaintiffs' remaining appeal against Defendant Han-Gyeong and appeal against the remaining Defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges intentionally (Presiding Judge)