logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.29 2018나75506
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” to the assertion that the plaintiffs stressed by this court, and thus, the same is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) On February 2, 201, the Plaintiffs asserts that the expression “pro-North Korea” itself infringes on personal rights.

Although an expressive act’s expression of critical opinion cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that the expressive act expressed another person’s opinion, if the form and content, etc. 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 as to another’s personal affairs, thereby infringing on the personality right, such act may constitute a separate type of tort that is separate from defamation.

(Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65494 Decided April 9, 2009). However, a matter of public interest, which is a political and social issue, should be widely disclosed and verified and the raising of a problem should be allowed.

Therefore, in determining the infringement of personal rights by an insulting expression, the determination of whether to recognize legal liability beyond the moral or political responsibility for the expressive act regarding public interest issues should be made with careful consideration as to what extent the freedom of expression is guaranteed, and as long as the critical expression does not reach the degree that it is deemed that it is malicious or considerably unreasonable, it constitutes tort.

or is not legally responsible.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da220798 Decided June 13, 2019, and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da61654 Decided October 30, 2018, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the foregoing case is identical to the health class and the North Korean defectors.

arrow