A. The meaning of “honorary” under Article 764 of the Civil Code

B. Where defamation is recognized, the relationship between the restoration of honor and monetary compensation

A. The term “honorary” under Article 764 of the Civil Act refers to an objective evaluation received from a world, such as a person’s character, virtue, reputation, and credit, and in particular, it infringes on the social evaluation of a legal entity’s reputation, reputation, and credit.

(b) If a victim of defamation claims compensation for damage as well as the advertisement of a private crime as a result of such defamation, the court may order a disposition to restore his/her reputation within the scope of the claims, together with monetary compensation, or may order the former only, or may order the latter to do so without specifying whether he/she is liable for damage.

Article 764 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na2113 delivered on May 1, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff and each defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant’s attorney

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that, in the course of competition between the plaintiff and the non-party corporation that already managed an entrusted management contract for the 1,842 apartment units in Seoul diving-si 1, 2, and 3 apartment units, and the plaintiff and the non-party corporation that intends to participate in the management contract, the representative director of the above company, who had been in charge of all business for the management of the above apartment units, did not enter into an entrusted management contract for the above apartment units under the name of the representative director because the plaintiff was under the title of the above company, and the plaintiff did not unfairly impose management fees in the management of the above apartment, and caused many irregularities and irregularities, such as unjust imposition of management fees in the management of the apartment units, and denying electric inspection fees and contact fees, etc., and the above apartment units are being put up time to avoid these crimes and continuously entrusted with the management of the above apartment units, the defendant's act of impairing the plaintiff's reputation and credit by distributing it to the tenant representative of the above apartment units, the defendant's act of impairing the plaintiff's interests from the above entrusted's unlawful act.

The above determination of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by omission of judgment or by misunderstanding of legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are groundless.

2. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney:

As seen earlier, the court below rejected the judgment below on the ground that, in full view of all circumstances such as the degree and contents of the infringement on the Plaintiff’s damages caused by the tort that damages the reputation and credit of the Plaintiff corporation, and the circumstance and background from the Defendant’s participation in the competition with the Plaintiff to the distribution of printed matter as indicated in its reasoning from the time of the distribution of printed matter as indicated in its reasoning, it is reasonable for the Defendant to pay KRW 3 million as compensation for damages, and as regards the part of the Defendant’s demand on the bulletin board installed before the apartment management office in addition to monetary compensation for the posting of printed matter and advertisement as alleged therein, the subject of distribution of printed matter is limited to the apartment’s residents and specific persons such as the apartment’s residents, etc., and the distribution of printed matter is already known to the Plaintiff or the Defendant’s representative director, and all circumstances such as the situation where the Defendant distributed the above printed matter and the fact that the Defendant continues the entrusted management of the above apartment, it is not recognized that it is necessary and effective as a measure to restore the reputation and credit damaged by the Defendant.

In theory, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's reputation and credit were damaged due to the defendant's tort, and the plaintiff claimed a private crime advertisement as a remedy method due to defamation and claimed monetary compensation against infringement due to credit damage. The court below ordered monetary compensation that the plaintiff did not know about the plaintiff's claim for recovery due to defamation is an omission of judgment and a violation of the right of disposition.

The term "honorary" in Article 764 of the Civil Code refers to an objective evaluation received from the world, such as a person's character, virtue, reputation, and credit, and in particular, it refers to a corporation's social reputation, reputation, and credit, and infringing on its social evaluation to impair its reputation.

If the Plaintiff claims compensation for damages as a victim of defamation and as well as private advertisement for the crime of defamation, the court may order the restoration of his reputation within the scope of the Plaintiff’s claims to either order the restoration of his reputation together with monetary compensation, or order the latter to do so without specifying the former. The court below is just in holding that the lower court’s measure of admitting only monetary compensation within the Plaintiff’s claims as to the Defendant’s act of infringing the right of reputation and rejecting the method of compensation for the crime of defamation is groundless

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon In-bok (Presiding Justice)