204 Gaz. 15905 Baz. 2004

A

Section B.

October 11, 2006

November 1, 2006

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff a copy of complaint from March 5, 2004 to the service date of the plaintiff 100,000,000 won and the copy of complaint.

shall pay 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff was appointed as a full-time lecturer at 00 university of 1992 00 and as a full-time lecturer at 1992, and was employed as an associate professor on April 26, 2004, and the defendant was appointed as a full-time lecturer at 1996 and served as an associate professor at 196.

B. On March 2, 2004, the defendant prepared and distributed printed articles stating that "I will leave the school" at 00 University, "I will have a different sex relationship with I will have been divorced under the status of his spouse," and that "I will have a third marriage." On March 5, 2004, I would like to read "I will have the first professor I will be 00 University, I would like to find students and I would like to be divorced to KI, and I would like to know that I would like to teach I will have no more than 6 I would like to give testimony during the second professor's first time, and I would like to give I would like to see that I would like to see that I will have no more than 0 I would like to have a new professor's testimony during the second professor's marriage."

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim, and the defendant judged that the plaintiff lacks the qualification as a professor.

First of all, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should pay consolation money to the plaintiff, on April 26, 2004, since the plaintiff's reputation was seriously damaged due to the plaintiff's serious mental shock, and the plaintiff retired from teaching staff on the ground that the defendant should pay consolation money in KRW 100 million to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the above act was conducted solely for the honor and development of the school, and for the students, and that it is not a tort because it was not for the interests of the defendant.

B. In a case where a statement of facts likely to undermine the victim’s external and social reputation is made in view of the objective criteria for determining illegality of defamation, civil defamation is established even without actively recognizing that the content is false.

However, the factual expression is about the public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, and there is no illegality if the content is true or there is a reasonable ground to believe that the actor is true. The expression "for the public interest" refers to the expression related to the public interest when it is objectively viewed that the stated fact concerns the public interest, and an actor also indicates the fact for the public interest. If the principal purpose or motive of the actor is incidental to the public interest, if it is for the important purpose or motive of the actor's private interest, the expression "the true fact" refers to the fact that is consistent with objective facts, and even if there is a little difference or somewhat exaggerated expression (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da37524, 37531 delivered on January 22, 2002).

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged, comprehensively taking into account the facts not disputed and Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 7-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 9-1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 11-1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 14, Eul evidence No. 15-1, 2, 3, and Eul No. 18-12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, Eul evidence No. 24-1, 24-2, and the whole purport of pleadings:

(1) The Defendant worked as a part-time lecturer from around 1990 before being employed as a full-time lecturer. On December 194, 1994, the Defendant’s wife and the professor B, who is the same assistant professor as the Defendant’s wife, and as well as the professor B, have been holding a meeting of a graduate team on the same room as the graduate team student, and the Plaintiff maintained an inappropriate relationship with the Plaintiff 00 from 00 students who were self-employed in the same room as 00. Afterwards, students find the Defendant and B again, and the Plaintiff’s wife were from time to time in the U.S., while the Plaintiff was studying in the U.S., and exchanged 0 with the head of a matrimonial relationship as well as the head of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to take appropriate measures on the part of the university and college formally by giving preference to classes to 00.

이에 피고와 B 교수는 00과 교수 2명과 함께 원고에게 위 소문에 대한 해명을 요구한 사실이 있는데 당시 원고는 위와 같은 소문에 관하여, 00을 이성으로 대하거나 넘지 않아야 할 선을 넘은 적이 없다고 주장하여 교수들 사이에서 위 소문의 진위 여부를 확인할 필요가 있다는 말이 나오기도 하였다. 원고는 1996학년도에 휴직을 하였다 . ( 2 ) 또한 피고는 원고가 1992년에 제자들과 회식 후 어느 한 제자의 차 안에서 나란히 누워 있다가 학생들에게 적발된 적이 있다는 소문을 들었고, 1999년에는 제자인 000가 동급생들에게 ' 00과 학생인 000가 불 꺼진 원고의 연구실에서 원고와 같이 나오는 것을 본 적이 있다는 말을 하였다는 소문 및 ' 000가 원고의 수업을 들을 때 지각을 자주하는 등 수업태도가 나빴음에도 학점을 잘 받아 다른 학생들이 불만을 토로한 사실이 있다는 소문도 들었으나 당시 원고에게 해명을 요구하거나 충고하지는 않았다 . ( 3 ) 원고는 1997학년도에 대학에 복직한 후 강의를 계속 하고 있었는데 2002년경 대학의 인터넷 홈페이지 게시판에 00과 관련한 원고의 사생활을 거론하면서 원고가 교수로서의 자질이 없다는 내용의 글이 게시된 사건이 발생하였다 .

Accordingly, the other professors of the defendant or the university read the above notices and discussed the plaintiff's personal correspondence. However, the plaintiff who was on overseas leave of absence at the time submitted a resignation to the principal in relation to the above notices, but withdrawal from the course of the principal and submission of a leave of absence, did not formally request disciplinary action against the plaintiff.

(4) On January 2002, the Plaintiff filed a divorce lawsuit against the wife, 000, but divorced by around February 2002, the Plaintiff married with the above 00 on May 2003.

On November 27, 2003, the Plaintiff sent e-mails to 00 and 000, the president of the department, to the Plaintiff that he would be reinstated in 2004 and that 00 theories, etc. (5) The director of the department sent e-mails to the Plaintiff that it is difficult to confirm the Plaintiff’s e-mails after the completion of the assignment of lectures in 2004, and that it is difficult to allocate lectures. On the other hand, the director of the department sent e-mails to the Plaintiff that 00 and most professors would oppose the Plaintiff’s reinstatement while reporting this to the president of the department. Furthermore, even though he applied for an interview to the president of the university, he was refused to apply for an interview from the president,

The plaintiff's mother was reprimanded by the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff's mother was aware that he was the president's friendship, and he was well aware that 'I were in Dan,' and the plaintiff was assigned a first semester lecture in 2004. (6) The defendant, who was aware that the plaintiff was reinstated, confirmed the plaintiff's former wife around December 2, 2003 and the first half of February 2004 about 00 from 00 and the first half of February 2, 2004, "I will leave the school." The plaintiff's professor stated that "I will leave the school." The plaintiff's former professor's sexual relationship with the professor's spouse, who was divorced, and then married with the third woman while the professor's spouse was divorced, and the president of the university did not request the university's president to refuse to meet the professor's interview, etc., and did not notify the plaintiff of the specific details by 0th of March 2004.

(7) On March 4, 2004, when the consciousness that the Plaintiff was aware that he was demoted during the first semester in 2004, 00 universities and 00 students refused to teach the Plaintiff’s subject on March 4, 2004, and demanded the head of the University Department to replace him with ethical and correct professor.

(8) The defendant, on March 5, 2004, distributed approximately 2,000 printed articles, "X professor had the honor of 00 universities and A professor." On March 12, 2004, 12 students of 00 universities and 98 universities and 12 were present several times on March 12, 2004, following the circumstance where the plaintiff received A credits even though 000 were frequent, and recommended the plaintiff to resign, and the defendant sent a letter of urge the president of the university and college to resign, and the letter of urge the president of the university and college and the letter of urge the president of the university and the letter of urge the plaintiff to resign with his consent on April 27, 2004.

(10) Meanwhile, after conducting a special audit, the school foundation requested a resolution of disciplinary action against the Plaintiff and the Defendant on April 7, 2004, and the Plaintiff resigned on April 26, 2004, the day before the resolution of disciplinary action. The Defendant was subject to three months of suspension from office.

In response to the above disciplinary action, the Defendant filed a suit for revocation of the retrial decision with the Seoul Administrative Court 2004Guhap00000, which was dissatisfied with the review decision, but the claim was dismissed, which was most of the above inducements in Seoul High Court 2005Nu0000, which was the appellate court, and the Plaintiff’s wife violated the duty to maintain dignity as a professor, and thus constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. Therefore, it is insufficient to consider the Defendant as grounds for disciplinary action solely on the ground that the Defendant did not confirm some of the inducements. The Defendant distributed the printed matter under the intent of demanding disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, which was the distribution of the printed matter under the intention of the Defendant to demand the disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, on the ground that the distribution of printed matter cannot be deemed to be justifiable or to be beyond the scope of reasonableness (the appeal was filed by Supreme Court Decision 2006Du

D. Determination

According to the above facts, since the defendant's statement in each of the above inducements is objectively deemed as a fact that may undermine the plaintiff's external and social reputation, the statement of such fact constitutes defamation.

However, around 00 around 194, the plaintiff was shot Dong, such as Kyang where 00 students were enrolled and maintained a dual relationship with Kyang. The second denied student in 2001, which led to the inappropriate relationship with the student who was a graduate school student, was divorced from 00 and then entered in the incentive articles such as marriage with the third party. The inappropriate relationship between the plaintiff and the third party was caused by the inappropriate relationship between the plaintiff and the third party on the Internet homepage of the university in 2002, the plaintiff was suspended from office at the end of 2003, and the defendant was requested to assign lectures around the end of 2003. However, the plaintiff's act of distributing the plaintiff's real name was not discussed within the school because it was difficult for the president of the university related to the plaintiff's reinstatement, and the defendant's opinion that the plaintiff's new incentive and the third party's new incentive were not presented for the purpose of the resolution of the disciplinary measure against the plaintiff's new incentive.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed without any need to examine the scope of damages. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cloats