2016Na2016397 (principal claim)

2016Na2016403 (Counterclaim) Damage

A Local Government

Appellant-Appellant

B

Plaintiff and Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Jeong-young

Appellant-Appellants

C.

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gahap206590 decided January 28, 2016 (main office);

2015Gahap3712 (Counterclaim Judgment)

August 19, 2016

November 29, 2016

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff A, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) B and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The portion incurred between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) out of the costs of appeal is borne by the Plaintiff A, and the portion incurred between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant B) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is borne by the respective Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The principal lawsuit: The defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") shall pay 100,000,000 won to the plaintiff A local government, the plaintiff (the counter-defendant; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") and 20% per annum from the day following the service date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Counterclaim: Plaintiff B shall pay to the Defendant 50,000,000 won with an annual interest of 15% from the day following the day of service of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Plaintiffs regarding the following amounts shall be revoked. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs 10 million won each year from the day following the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case until September 30, 2015 and 15% each year from the following day until September 30, 2015.

B. Defendant’s principal suit: The part against the Defendant among the part against the Defendant’s principal suit in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s principal suit corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

Counterclaim: Revocation of the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance. A judgment, such as the machinery of purport of the counterclaim, shall be sought.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when adding a part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance or adding a part of the reasoning, as set forth in paragraph (2) below, with regard to the repeated assertion by the parties. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

○ The following shall be added to the 19th 20th 20th son of the first instance judgment:

Even if the Defendant’s above e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail was dismantled, W players was driven away from Rusia, and the e-mail’s purchase of a new e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail’s e-mail and market economy’s e-mail’s e-mail’s refusal or enhancement.

① In determining whether tort caused by defamation is established, the criteria for determination should vary depending on whether the victim whose reputation is damaged is a public figure or a private figure, whether the expression concerns a public concern or a purely private matter, etc. In particular, in the case of a matter such as the execution of a local government’s budget, in light of the citizen’s monitoring function in light of the area requiring citizen’s monitoring function, it should not be easily held liable unless it is a malicious or considerably unreasonable attack.

② The Defendant’s above posted comments raised doubt that the dissolution of the Plaintiff AD department was the main cause of the dissolution of the Plaintiff AD department, while the Plaintiff A’s declaration of the Maratonium but it is inappropriate to replace the tolerance vehicle. The Defendant’s above posting of this E is about the public interest of the head of the local government’s appropriateness and soundness of the corrective activities. Thus, the Defendant’s main purpose of the posting of this E is to promote public interest.

③ On January 1, 2011, the Plaintiff’s 15 workplace sports teams, including AD, among the 15 workplace sports teams affiliated with the Plaintiff’s 15 workplace sports teams, were dissatisfyed. On January 18, 2011, the replacement of the 12 workplace sports teams consisting of the 15 workplace sports teams. On February 18, 2011, the Plaintiff reported articles that criticize the Plaintiff’s dual behavior of the Plaintiff’s government that had replaced the clibation vehicle while declaring the clibation in various media such as the early BA press, etc. on February 2011. On April 201, the fact that the Plaintiff’s clibation of the Plaintiff’s clibry in the media such as QA, etc. reported the article that the Plaintiff’s clibry was dissatfying the Plaintiff’s AD’s AD’s clibry, regardless of the foregoing facts and media reports, the Defendant appears to have been sufficiently doubtful the Plaintiff’s cul.

④ In light of the above, the Defendant’s expression, such as the Defendant’s 'W 'W 'W 'W 'W 'W 'W 'W 'W 'W ', close to 'W 'W ',' and 'W 'W 'W 'W ' by the head of the City A' as a price for 'W 'W 'W ',' seems to have been used in the process of raising the above suspicions or criticism, and these Defendant’s expression is related to Plaintiff A’s corrective activities or the budget operation of the local government, which is a local government, and it is about the public issue of public figures or public organizations that require citizen's attention and checks, and as seen earlier, some media have critically reported the Plaintiff’s 's 'W 's 'W 'W 'W 's 'W ' 'W ', 'W ', 'W '

○ From the 16th day to the 17th day of the 16th day of the first instance judgment, the following shall be followed. (b) The judgment shall be made.

1) Whether tort due to defamation is established

B. During the period from July 10, 2015 to July 11, 2015, Plaintiff B posted a statement on “C’s fine of KRW 200 million on his E account or AA account is subject to criminal punishment by the State, and the lower amount of compensation is KRW 200 million in the lawsuit. In addition, the Defendant’s act of reporting the existence of money in ATM, “n’t whether money remains,” “B’s summary indictment,” “B’s market defamation suspicion,” and “B’s case of compensation for damages of KRW 200,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00.

2) The Defendant, including whether it was illegal or not, has used social network services such as E, or contributed to various media such as broadcasting, etc. However, considering the fact that the Defendant was charged with defamation of the Plaintiff on April 29, 2015, the Defendant was guilty of violating the Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection (Defamation) and defamation of the Plaintiff, but the Defendant was charged with non-prosecution on July 2, 2015. The Defendant’s charge of defamation of the Plaintiff on the part of the Seoul District Prosecutor’s Office’s 2014, No. 83875, and No. 9247, the Defendant’s charge of defamation of the Plaintiff was not included in the lower court’s summary order on the part of the Defendant’s defamation of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s charge of defamation of the Plaintiff’s news was not included in the lower court’s summary order on the part of the Defendant’s defamation of the Plaintiff, as well as on the part of the Defendant’s charges of defamation of the Plaintiff.

3) Therefore, the defendant's counterclaim is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, all appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

the presiding judge and deputy judge

Judge Lee Ro-man

Judge Choi Ho-hoon