Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Han River, Attorneys Gyeong-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 3 and one other

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 25, 2003

Seoul District Court Decision 200Gahap87678 Delivered on December 4, 2002

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, each of the plaintiffs 1, 300, 1,500,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 2,000, 2,000 won to the plaintiff 4, and 2,000 won to the defendant 2 against the plaintiff 1, 3 respectively, 1,50,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 1,500,000 won to the plaintiff 4, and 2,000,000 won to the plaintiff 4, and each of the above amounts to the above amounts, 5% per annum from March 1, 201 to May 31, 203, and from the next day to the full payment date, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for revocation is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed.

2. All remaining appeals by the Defendants and incidental appeals by Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are dismissed.

3. 80% of the costs of lawsuit in the first instance court and the appellate court shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and 20% by the Defendants, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

Defendant 1 shall pay to Plaintiff 1 and 2 5,00,000 won, respectively, and to Plaintiff 3 and 4 10,000,000 won, respectively, and Defendant 2 shall pay to Plaintiff 1 and 2 7,000,000 won, respectively, and to Plaintiff 3 and 4 7,000,000 won, respectively, and each of the above amounts, 25% interest per annum from the day following the date of final delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case until the date of complete delivery.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding thereto shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against Plaintiff 1 and 2, which falls under the following part of the order to pay is revoked. Defendant 1 shall pay to Plaintiff 1 2,00,000, 3,000,000 won to Plaintiff 2, and Defendant 2 shall pay to Plaintiff 1 2,00,000, 3,000,000 won to Plaintiff 2, and 3,00,000 won to Plaintiff 2, and each of the above amounts by the rate of 25% per annum from March 1, 201 to the date of full payment.

The court's explanation on the instant case is based on Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, for the following reasons except for the following changes: (a) No. 2(b) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(b) Public interests;

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are minority shareholders who purchased stocks in response to the public offering of the Internet of Nonparty 1. Each of the instant notices is a matter of public interest, such as the shareholders and creditors of Nonparty 1 and the members of this society, since the contents of each of the instant notices were intended to minimize the damages of minority shareholders, and to prevent other victims from causing the other victims, since they provided information to the investors of good amount of money invested in Nonparty 1, one of the venture businesses that appeared, such as the booming booming boom and the booming booming boom and the booming of their families, employees, etc., one of them.

(c)originality and reasonableness;

(1) Defendant 1’s notice

(a) the truth;

The overall increase in Defendant 1’s notices is for the purpose of committing a systematic fraud. The Plaintiffs’ establishment of Nonparty 1’s company is for embezzlement and deduction of both share offering price and capital, and the establishment of another company to commit another fraud. The Plaintiffs merely exaggeration the fact that the Plaintiffs committed a fraud through the public offering of the Internet shares, it is more necessary to indicate new facts than the extent.

① In the case of Plaintiff 1, as seen earlier, in light of the following: (a) Plaintiff 1 loaned 300 million won in capital to Nonparty 1 and immediately withdrawn and abandoned it; (b) publicly announced false facts at the time of the public offering of the Internet; (c) Plaintiff 1 consumed a significant portion of the above public offering price in the form of provisional payment; (d) Plaintiff 1 again established a mutual company called (trade name omitted) in the name of Plaintiff 2 in the name of Plaintiff 2 even though the management difficulties of Nonparty 1 were in the company; and (e) Plaintiff 1 was prosecuted against the public offering of the Internet stocks and was convicted of committing fraud; (b) it is true that Plaintiff 1’s Internet public offering of shares was caused by fraud; (c) on the other hand, Plaintiff 1’s establishment of the company by fraud; or (d) establishment of the company with the intention to commit fraud since Nonparty 1 was incorporated, it is difficult to view that the overall public offering of the company constituted embezzlement of Plaintiff 160 million won.

② In the part against Plaintiff 3, as seen earlier, Plaintiff 3 took charge of practical affairs at the time of public offering of shares via the Internet; Defendant 1’s telephone conversations that the false public disclosure to Nonparty 1 was true; Defendant 1’s director in charge of accounting management of Nonparty 1 took charge of assisting Plaintiff 1’s financial affairs while serving as the director in charge of Nonparty 1’s financial affairs; Plaintiff 1 retired and resigned other company Nonparty 1, and transferred Plaintiff 1 to that company again. In light of the above, Plaintiff 3 may be deemed to have taken part in the above fraud of Plaintiff 1; however, insofar as the overall contents of Defendant 1’s notice against Plaintiff 1 cannot be deemed to be true, the part that Plaintiff 3 took part in the crime of fraud cannot be deemed to have been true.

③ In the case of Plaintiff 2, it is difficult to view that Plaintiff 2 participated in Plaintiff 1’s fraud because there is no evidence to acknowledge that Plaintiff 2 was registered as a director of Nonparty 1, received monthly salary, and participated in Nonparty 1’s establishment and public offering of shares. Therefore, it is difficult to view this part as the truth.

④ In the case of the part against Plaintiff 4, the Plaintiff 4 served as an accounting officer of Nonparty 1, but his age (the age of 19 years) and Nonparty 1’s end-up employee were merely merely limited to the degree of implementing the instructions, it is difficult to view that Plaintiff 1’s participation in the act of fraud is true. This part is also difficult.

(B) Appropriateness;

Defendant 1’s publication of the above notice constitutes a case where there is considerable reason to believe that it is true because it was merely a hearing and posting from an anonymous informant, who was an employee of Nonparty 1.

(2) Defendant 2’s notices

(a) the truth;

The overall increase in Defendant 2’s notices is a group of professionals with a defense force, and the plaintiffs are those who intend to promote the morale by using Nonparty 1 company as a group of professionals with a defense force, and to establish a new company and to commit the fraud. In addition, compared to the fact that the plaintiffs committed the fraud through public offering of the Internet stocks, it is deemed that the plaintiffs expressed new facts beyond a simple exaggeration, and it is difficult to view it as true for the reasons as stated in the above paragraph (1).

(B) Appropriateness;

It is difficult to view Defendant 2 as constituting a case where there is a considerable reason to believe that Defendant 2 was true, since Defendant 2 prepared his post on the basis of abutting on Internet posts.

D. Sub-committee

The defendants' allegation of illegality is without merit.

Therefore, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by defamation.

3. Scope of damages.

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiffs suffered mental pain due to the defendants' notices, there is a duty to do so in monetaryly. Furthermore, in consideration of the amount of consolation money, health class, the contents of the defendants' notices, the degree of the plaintiffs' participation in and whether the above notices were involved in the fraud, the degree of credibility offered to the general public, the degree of its spread, and all other circumstances indicated in the instant case, such as the above notices, it is reasonable to compensate the plaintiff 1 and 3 for KRW 1,50,000, KRW 2,000 to the plaintiff 4, and KRW 1,50,000 to the plaintiff 1 and 3, and the defendant 2 shall compensate the plaintiff 1 and 3 for KRW 1,50,000,000 to the plaintiff 2, and KRW 1,500,000 to the plaintiff 4 and KRW 2,000 to the plaintiff 4.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 1, 3, 100 won, 150,000 won, 2,000 won, 2,000 won, 2,000 won, and Defendant 2, respectively, to Plaintiff 1,3, 1,500 won, 1,500,000 won, and 2,000,000 won, and each of the above amounts to Plaintiff 4 after the date of the above tort, are finally delivered by the copy of the complaint to the Defendants. Since the above case, Defendant 1 and 3 are subject to an annual interest rate of 1,50,000 won, 2,000 won, 3,000 won, 2,000 won, 3,000 won, and 3,000,000 won, and 20,000 won, 3,0000,000,0000 won, which were later revised by the Presidential Decree No. 20,5,003,000.

Judges Lee Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)