(영문) 대전지방법원 2012.3.22.선고 2011가단28998 판결

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 100,000,000 won with 5% per annum from May 9, 2011 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a public corporation that engages in railroad transportation and maintenance of rolling stock, manufacture and sale of railroad equipment, and the machinery from January 1, 1999, the Plaintiff continued to work and was dismissed on January 1, 2005 after the Plaintiff was established, but is currently working as the director general of education and publicity of the Daejeon Regional Headquarters of the Korea Railroad Workers' Union.

B. On May 8, 201: 14:00 KTX 130 trains (MMM) departing from the astronomical Asan Station at approximately 00: (a) a serious vibration and noise has occurred in the middle part of the 18th guest cars at the mar station located in the mar station and the middle part of the mar station in the mar station and the mar station; (b) the passengers of the relevant train evacuated the other guest lanes; and (c) even though the passengers demanded the suspension of the operation of trains, the engine operator of the relevant train continued to drive the train speed of 170 km per hour and arrived late in the mar station.

C. Cultural Broadcasting (MBC; hereinafter referred to as the "MBC") reporters, despite an accident, need to gather news on the side of the railroad union and requested an interview to the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s response alone is difficult to identify the matter with respect to the causes of this force of train operation, despite the fact that the Plaintiff’s response is difficult to identify the matter.

D. On May 8, 2011, the Defendant had an interview with the following contents as the interests of the reporters of the MBC around May 8, 201, and the MBC Compilationed it and sent it to the MBC News Center at around 21:13:

Details of an interview.

In other words, if the KTX delays more than 20 minutes, the case will be dealt with.

Therefore, if delay occurs after 20 minutes, it is necessary to refund the passenger fee by 15%.

Therefore, if such contents occur, the employees concerned are subject to disciplinary action against the Ama.

Merely high probability of carrying on a ship.

(B) Documents related to the disciplinary action, if the Secretary-General, is required to do so? Disciplinary action may be taken on the basis of the disciplinary action.

L. L. S. S. S.T. Me. S. S. Me. S. Me. L. S. S. L.S. L.S.

Part * Heavy disciplinary action on the part of the accident or the part or the part or the part or the part in which the accident occurred.

need to be removed, removed, or removed, which would result in severe disciplinary action, so that it is so unreasonable.

It is inevitable to rupture a rupture.

(that is not a disciplinary action against an engineer, or those who are such persons need to take disciplinary action?)

In the case of the affiliation, the Do responsibilities shall be held on the parties, but the parties shall be held on their own responsibility.

100 .0 .0 ........

(2) If any of the following events is delayed, or delayed arrival, it shall be subject to a disciplinary action, which shall not be subject to this opinion.

Abstract ?)

D. He will do so.

(3) In the event that there is a delay of more than 20 minutes by KTX only once every month, the passengers of KTX.

there is a provision that KTX charges shall be refunded to 15% of the KTX charges. Such content is required, 20

The situation in which it is inevitable to operate unreasonably to ensure that the part is delayed.

. Because of being subject to disciplinary action,

If the KTX delays more than 20 minutes, the dealing with the accident will be settled (hereinafter referred to as the "first expression");

(If so, the employee is subject to disciplinary action. (hereinafter referred to as “second speech”)

(C) the 3rd speech . (hereinafter referred to as the “third speech”) is likely to operate the train in a unreasonable manner.

E. The cause of the above KTX accident was found to have been caused by the imbalance of the old-dong axis caused by the long-term use of the engine for towing (in excess of the period of decomposition and inspection) and the booming was damaged. As such, the Plaintiff announced on May 12, 201 that the part of the KTX’s old-age will be replaced with the whole quantity of the parts of the KTX’s old-age.

F. As above, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant only by filing a criminal complaint as defamation, without pointing out any question as to editing and reporting the contents of the interview with the Defendant.

G. On the other hand, on February 11, 201, KTX trains: (a) an accident occurred in which the Plaintiff was forced to leave from the luminous station (the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action against the relevant workers); (b) on April 23, 2011, the occurrence of an accident involving the Plaintiff’s electric vehicle, who was employed by the Plaintiff of the GTX trains, 20 meters prior to the death of the Plaintiff during the first half of the year 201, and the occurrence of an accident involving the Plaintiff’s electric vehicle, who was discharged from office, and went away from the tracks or above the tracks, was reported to the media frequently.

H. The notification of the criteria for the settlement of consumer disputes of the Fair Trade Commission is based on the following provisions if the KTX trains were delayed and suspended in operation:

Not less than 20 but less than 40 minutes: 12.5% refund of charges;

Not less than 40 minutes but less than 60 minutes: 25% refund of charges;

More than 60 minutes delayed: Return of 50% of charges

Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued a refund or discount ticket to the passengers in the event of delay of more than 20 minutes of KTX trains, or suspension of operation, and the refund to the passengers in the first half of 201 would amount to KRW 1,08,450,000 in the first half of the year 201. As such, there is a debate that the delayed time, which serves as the basis for the refund of the above notice, should be extended to 20 minutes by 40 minutes of the delayed refund of the Plaintiff’s intentional refund due to the time limit as above, and there is a concern for the shortage of the operation of the train due to the increase in the cost of the refund of the Plaintiff’s intentional refund and the settlement of the accident.

I. The relevant provisions of the Plaintiff are as shown in the annexed sheet.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 7, 9, 11 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 20 (each number Nos. 1 through 20), the inquiry results on the profits of the reporters of the cultural broadcast report station of this court, the purport of the body before oral pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff’s disciplinary action is imposed against the delayed operation of the train to avoid the refund due to the delay of the train, the Defendant caused damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation by conducting a false interview with the fact that the pertinent engine operated the train unreasonably despite the failure of the KTX train. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for mental damage.

B. Determination

(1) In order to establish defamation by news reports, there should be a statement of specific facts that may undermine the victim's social evaluation. Even in cases where the media, such as broadcasting, carries out an act that defames another person by pointing out facts, and such act solely for the public interest, if the statement of facts is proved to be true, even if there is no proof that it is true, and if there is no reason to believe that it is true, the actor believed it to be true, or there is no reason to believe it. Here, "when the purpose is solely for the public interest" refers to the statement of facts related to the public interest when it is objectively viewed that the publicly alleged facts are about the public interest, and thus, the actor stated such facts for the public interest. If the principal purpose or motive of the actor is published for the public interest, it refers to 0th of 6th of 0th of 20th of 20th of 20th of 20th of 3th of 20th of 20th of 3th of 20th of 20th of 20th of 3th of 20th of 200.

(2) Whether the Defendant’s expression is true or not

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s relevant provision defines a delayed operation of a train for not less than 10 minutes (e.g., interference with operation) as an accident, and even if the cause of the accident is proved to be dealt with, as well as the occurrence of delay in restoration or social water due to inappropriate treatment, the accident-related person shall be reprimanded, and the degree of damage, degree of delay in train and social wave, degree of negligence, etc. shall be the basis for reprimand. ② In particular, if the Plaintiff’s interference exceeds 20 minutes or damage exceeds 10 million won, it may be subject to disciplinary action depending on the degree of negligence if the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct an interview as a whole, and ③ if the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct an interview for not less than 20 minutes, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s failure to conduct an interview as an objective basis for extending the time of discipline as to the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct an interview as a whole.

(3) Whether illegality is denied

In addition, as seen above, railroads should give priority to safety because a large number of people is likely to cause a large-scale accident. As seen above, a series of railroad accidents, such as a collapsed accident during the first half of 2011, which led to increasing social interest in the causes of accidents and measures to prevent recurrence, and in such a situation, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant interviewed with the press organization on the date of the accident for the public interest of the safety of railroads as the cause of the accident, etc. In addition, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s expression was a malicious or considerably unreasonable attack against the Plaintiff, a public corporation that is responsible for the safety of railroads, and thus, the illegality of the Defendant’s expression should be avoided.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges

Judges Gangwon-do;

Site of separate sheet

Plaintiff-Related Provisions

《 철도사고 등의 보고 및 조사에 관한 지침 》

Article 3 (Definitions) The definitions of terms used in this Guidelines shall be as follows:

1. The term "railroad accident" means the death or injury of a person, or the exhaustion of things, which occurred in connection with railroad operation or railroad facility management, and shall be classified into railroad traffic accident and railroad safety accident;

4. "Operational failure" means interference with the operation of rolling stock, which does not constitute a railroad accident, and is classified into a dangerous incident and a delay operation.

6. “Late-speeding operation” means operation of high speed trains and electric trains for 10 minutes, 20 minutes for ordinary passenger trains, and 40 minutes for cargo trains and out-of-air trains for more than 40 minutes.

《 철도무사고 실적관리 지침 》

(Definitions) (Definitions) The definitions of terms used in this Guideline shall be as follows:

1."accident" means a railroad accident (as defined in the Guidelines for Reporting and Investigations of Railroad Accidents (No. 98) set out in the Guidelines (No. 98).

The term "driving disabilities" means happiness; hereinafter the same shall apply.

2. The term "accident-free" means a liability accident as provided for in paragraph 1 of Article 7 and a state in which there is no other cause or event provided for in any of the subparagraphs.

means.

3. The term "liability accident" means failure to maintain and repair facilities, vehicles, equipment, etc. by fault or error in handling the employees.

A person responsible for an accident caused by others shall be responsible for such accident, and Article 51 of the Railroad Safety Management Regulations shall apply to the employees.

subsection (1) of this section means an accident for which a reprimand is made.

Article 7 (Cumulative Extinguishment) (1) Where any of the following grounds arises, the accumulated quantity shall be determined according to the respective standards:

D. The whole or part of the cumulative amount of an accident shall be extinguished.

1. Where a responsible accident has occurred;

(a) When he has been referred to the Disciplinary Committee and has been subject to a disposition heavier than reprimand: Extinguishment of total cumulative quantity;

(c) When he is given a warning or a disposition of caution: The performance generated for three years from the date of occurrence shall expire;

《 철도안전관리규정 》

Article 26 (Evaluation of Liability, etc.) The head of the Safety Office shall, where a railroad accident, etc. occurs due to a mistake in handling employees, negligence in maintenance and repair, neglect in inspection, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "liability accident, etc."), measure and manage the responsibility of the employees and the employees under his/her jurisdiction on the basis of the number of casualties, the amount of damage, etc., and other relevant factors.

Article 27 (Safety Evaluation) (1) The chief of the Safety Office may reflect the results of the examination under Article 23 and the evaluation of liability accidents, etc. under Article 26 (hereinafter referred to as "Safety Evaluation") in the management evaluation under his/her jurisdiction.

Article 50 (Measures as Result of Investigation) (1) The president or the head of an affiliated agency may reprimand a person under his/her control or his/her employee in cases where the cause of a railroad accident, etc. is proved to have caused the above-mentioned handling and where the recovery work is inappropriate, causing delay in recovery or social water, and in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, he/she may reprimand a

1. Where the cause is extremely malicious;

2. Where the result has an adverse effect on railroad confidence.

3. Where damage is serious.

4. Where substantial delay in recovery and recovery or substantial damage is caused to society;

Article 51 (Method of Measures) (1) The methods of reprimand falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be applied to an affiliated agency or an employee subject to reprimand under Article 50 (1) and two or more persons may be concurrently imposed according to the seriousness of responsibility:

1. Removal from position; 2. Disciplinary Action; 4. Warning; Warning 5. Caution 6. Corrective Action

《 안적성적평가지침 》

Article 9 (Calculation of Reduction Points according to Scale of Damage)

(2) When a responsible accident occurs, the calculation of a reduction in the amount of damage shall be as follows:

1. One point shall be added up to a million won or more but less than ten million won;

2. 20 to 50 million won shall be added.

3. Their three points shall be added to not less than fifty million won and less than one hundred million won; and

4. The aggregate of 4 points shall be more than 100 million won and less than 300 million won.

5. The amount in excess of 300 million won shall be added to 5 points.

《 피해구상 및 장비사용료 징수지침 》

Article 2 (Definitions) The definitions of terms used in this Regulation shall be as follows:

4. The term “amount of damage” refers to the total amount of loss suffered by the Corporation due to the occurrence of a railroad accident, etc.

Article 6 (Extent of Calculation of Damages) (1) The calculation of damages caused by railroad accidents, etc. shall be based on the following expenses within the scope:

1. Damage in the field of business;

(a) Damage to human life and property relating to railroad business;

(b) train delay charges;

(d) Operating expenses, such as temporary trains and electric trains;

(e)the amount of damages paid to the owner;

(f) Personnel expenses paid for driving at the scene of the accident recovery, support for the management of divers, etc.

《 철도사고 보고 및 조사에 관한 지침 ( 2010 . 4 . 30 . 제2010 - 32호로 개정되기 전의 것 , 이하 같음 )

Article 21 (Those subject to Reprimand)

(1) Where the cause of an accident is proved to be a regular dealing, and where restoration is not appropriate due to the impossibility of restoration from, and settlement of, the accident.

Any person involved in an accident may be reprimanded if the person has caused the question of any year or society and:

may also be reprimanded against a person in charge of supervision.

1. Where the cause of the accident is extremely malicious;

2. Where the result of an accident has an adverse effect on railroad confidence.

3. Where an accident is seriously injured.

4. Where the recovery from an accident or the recovery from an accident is considerably delayed, or social water is significantly caused.

Article 22 (Method of Reprimand)

(1) The reprimand against any person involved in an accident and any person responsible for supervision shall be applying one of the following subparagraphs and shall be based on the seriousness of responsibilities:

(d) At least two persons may be concurrently imposed.

1. Removal from position; 2. Disciplinary Action; 4. Warning; Warning 5. Caution 6. Corrective Action

(2) The standards for reprimand according to the scale of damage, social strike, and seriousness of causes shall be as specified in attached Table 4, and cases of competition shall be as specified in attached Table 4.

section 21(1)(1) through (4) of this title, or

If a violation of duties prescribed by the rules of employment is clarified, it shall be aggravated.

Guidelines for Reporting and Investigations of Railroad Accidents (attached Table 4) and Criteria for Reprimand

참조판례

-대법원 2003. 7. 8. 선고 2002다64384 판결

-대법원 2006. 3. 23. 선고 2003다52142 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.09 2015가단5324539

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2016.11.04 2016고합58

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.06.05 2017고단1558

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.15 2015고정2256

-대전지방법원 2014.11.04 2014고단1876