Whether an act of manufacturing and distributing at a low price a design similar to the clothes of another person, which has reputation and credit as the clothes of high-class image, constitutes an act of damaging the credibility of other person (affirmative)

Article 751(1) of the Civil Act provides for the liability for damages other than property caused by a tort. Damage other than property does not mean only mental pain, but also includes intangible damage which can be assessed by social norms, and thus, a person who has damaged a corporation’s reputation or credit is liable for damages other than property to the corporation. However, since the act of impairing the corporation’s reputation or credit includes all acts that undermine the corporation’s social assessment to the extent that it could affect the corporation’s implementation of its business, it includes not only the act of expressing specific facts or expressing opinions, but also the act of impairing the corporation’s reputation by manufacturing the clothes of the other person’s clothes similar to the clothes of a high-class image, which is obtained reputation and credit, and distributing them at low prices.

Article 751(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1707 delivered on November 30, 1965 (Gong1996Ha, 2351 delivered on November 10, 2005) Supreme Court Decision 96Da12696 delivered on June 28, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2351 delivered on November 10, 2005) 429Sang824 delivered on January 14, 196

Plaintiff

Defendant corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na55161 decided July 13, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 751(1) of the Civil Act provides for the liability for damages other than property due to a tort. Damage other than property does not mean only mental pain, but also includes any intangible damage which can be assessed by social norms. Thus, a person who damages a corporation’s reputation or credit is liable for damages other than property to the corporation (see Supreme Court Decisions 4290Da824, Nov. 14, 1960; 2005Da37710, Nov. 10, 2005; 2005Da37710, Nov. 10, 2005). Thus, the act that damages the corporation’s reputation or credit includes all acts that undermine the corporation’s social assessment to the extent that it might affect the corporation’s performance of its intended business (see Supreme Court Decisions 65Da1707, Nov. 30, 196; 96Da12696, Jun. 28, 196).

In light of the above legal principles and records, it is reasonable that the court below determined that the plaintiff made a pattern of design similar to the clothes of the defendant company, which is recognized as a highly-class product with reputation and credit from consumers, and distributed them at a low price of about 10% at the selling price of the clothing of the defendant company, thereby undermining the credibility of the defendant company. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to credit damage as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to other grounds of appeal, and there is no criticism of the court below's fact-finding without mentioning that the court below violated the specific rules of logic or experience, or criticizes the judgment of the court below under a premise different from its determination

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)