206Na298 Compensation for Damages, etc.

Rayal Co., Ltd.

Seopopo-si Seopopo-dong 5

○○○○

Attorney Lee Jong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant, ○-hoon, ○-gu, ○-gu, ○-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jon-hun, Counsel for defendant-appellant

1. An assistant director at the 00th day of the company;

Jeju OO 000

○○○○

2. ○○○ (O-O-O-O-O-O).

Jeju ○ ○○ ○○○○ ○○○ ○○○ ○○○○○ Booths’ office

[Judgment of the court below]

Jeju District Court Decision 2005Gahap1120 Decided February 9, 2006

October 13, 2006

November 17, 2006

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the above revocation shall be dismissed.

2. All the costs of the first and second trials shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiff 1 billion won with 5% interest per annum from March 11, 2005 to the day on which the complaint was served, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was established on August 22, 200 and operated from around December 13, 2002 to Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si as its member system with 27 holes 'Rachial Hexaco clubs'. The Defendant’s ○○○○ Man-man was established on December 31, 1962 and published '○○○ Man-day daily newspaper', which is a daily newspaper in Jeju-do, and the Defendant ○○○○○ is a full-time member of ○○ Man-day daily newspaper.

B. In accordance with the provisions of the Jeju-do Special Act on Private International City and the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, which are established for the purpose of enhancing the competitiveness of golf tourism in Jeju-do, the Plaintiff received tax reduction of approximately KRW 4.6 billion, such as special consumption tax, etc., and operated the Jeju-do Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing Province Special Self-Governing

C. On January 2, 2004, the Plaintiff submitted an application for deliberation on change of admission fees (12,000 won among non-member states, 161,000 won at the end of the week) to the Jeju Do Governor, stating that the cumulative amount of KRW 5.1 billion has been caused due to the enforcement of the above admission fees, to the Jeju Do Governor, and submitted an application for deliberation on change of admission fees (the admission fees applied by the Plaintiff on January 13, 2004 are not reflected in the amount of reduction or exemption compared with the average admission fees of the Do governor. The Plaintiff again rejected the request for change of admission fees to the Jeju Do Governor on February 8, 2004, but on the same reason, did not receive the above admission fees from 30,000 won on March 10, 2004, the Jeju Do Governor decided to increase the admission fees to 30,000 won on March 14, 2004.

D. The plaintiff filed an application again with Jeju Do Governor on March 26, 2004 and June 1, 2004 on two occasions. On June 4, 2004, the Jeju Do Governor concluded a service contract with the Korea Leisure Industry Research Institute on the basis of calculating the admission fees, and recommended the plaintiff on January 13, 2005 to reduce the admission fees to KRW 108,000,000,000 from the previous admission fees (122,00,000, 171,000,000,000,000 won from the previous admission fees).

E. Meanwhile, on March 11, 2005, Defendant ○○○○○ prepared a private theory with the same content as that stated in the attached Form (hereinafter “after convenience”) in the private theory of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on March 11, 2005, stating as the title “The ○○○○○○○” as “the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○.”

【Partial Grounds for Recognition】 In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul 1-4, Eul 5, Eul 6-1 through 8, Eul 8, Eul 8, the result of the first instance court's personal examination of defendant ○○, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the private opinion of this case is extremely emotional beyond the scope of simple expression of opinion or freedom of comment, and thus, the plaintiff's reputation was damaged by using the expression of criticism, defamation, or insulting expressions against the plaintiff or by pointing out specific facts and thus, the defendants are liable to compensate for property and mental damage suffered by the plaintiff as joint tortfeasor.

With regard to this, the Defendants asserted that the private opinion of this case is dismissed since it was published for the public interest that satisfies the citizens' right to know on the basis of true facts, and that it was published for the sake of the public interest that satisfies the citizens' right to know.

3. Determination

A. Whether the private theory of this case harms the plaintiff's reputation by pointing out specific facts

(1) As to whether specific facts were revealed

In order to establish defamation, a statement of specific facts must be made that may undermine the social assessment of the victim. Here, the expression of facts is not necessarily limited to cases where a direct expression of facts is made, but also indirectly and indirectly, in light of the overall purport of the expression, it is sufficient to suggest the existence of such facts in light of the overall purport of the expression, thereby suggesting the existence of such facts, and thereby, are likely to infringe on the social value of a specific person.

In light of the overall purport of the expression, the private theory of this case drawn up by Defendant ○○○ may be deemed as impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation by suggesting that “the Plaintiff received tax reduction of KRW 4.6 billion from the Jeju-do branch for its own profit, disregarding its recommendation for the reduction of the admission fee and unilaterally raised the admission fee for its own profit” (the Plaintiff’s “the private theory of this case has been gaining considerable profit during this period,” and even though he received approximately KRW 4.6 billion from the Jeju-do branch, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff unilaterally obtained unjust profit by disregarding the proper right of admission fee, and reflecting the tax reduction and exemption on the admission fee set up by the Jeju-do governor with the intention of the Jeju-do branch, and that it is an enterprise with the competitiveness of the company falling short of the golf tourism in Jeju-do,” the Plaintiff’s argument that it is an objective method to criticize the Plaintiff’s opinion that it would have been used in light of its overall content.

On the other hand, we examine whether the illegality of the plaintiff's private theory in this case is dismissed, and then examine whether the illegality of the theory in this case is dismissed.

(2) As to the defendants' defense of illegality rejection

(A) Even in the case of an act impairing another person’s reputation under civil law, if it is a matter of public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, if it is proven that it is true, such act shall be deemed unlawful.

(B) First of all, in order to promote golf tourism in Jeju-do, the State and Jeju-do shall have a detailed right to know about how the private theory in this case was made solely for the purpose of public interest, and the State and Jeju-do shall have a provision on the reduction or exemption of special consumption tax, etc. for golf courses in Jeju-do to promote golf tourism in Jeju-do, and accordingly, shall have implemented the policy to reflect the tax reduction or exemption in the admission fee. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was granted a benefit of about KRW 4.6 billion, such as special consumption tax, etc., and the Plaintiff was a member of the golf course who operated the golf course with the above tax reduction or exemption benefit in Jeju-do and reflected it in the admission fee. As such, it is reasonable to view that the private theory in this case was made for the public interest purpose to meet citizens' right to know.

(C) Next, we examine whether the facts revealed in the private theory of this case are true or not, and first, the fact that the Plaintiff was exempted from taxes of approximately KRW 4.6 billion on condition of the reduction of admission fees and was recommended by the Jeju Do Governor to reduce admission fees on several occasions, and that the Plaintiff raised its admission fees for his own profit. Thus, the private theory of this case is consistent with the truth.

(D) Ultimately, the private theory of this case drawn up by Defendant ○○○ and published on the ○○○ daily bulletin is about the public interest and its illegality is denied as it is true. Therefore, the defendants' defenses pointed out this point are well-grounded.

B. Whether the expression of opinion itself is unlawful among the private opinions of this case

In general, in setting the limitation between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, the criteria for the review should vary depending on whether the victim who is damaged by the relevant expression is a public figure or a private existence or a private interest issue or a purely pertaining to a matter belonging to the private sector. In the case of expressions concerning matters of public and social significance, the restriction on the freedom of press should be mitigated.

With respect to this case, the public health room, "the salt ended beyond the Do," "the Do," "the long-term Do," "the fall of the golf competitiveness of Jeju-do," "the Do," "the Do," "the Do," "the Do," "the Do," "the Do," and "the Do," "the Do," "the Do, the Do, was the Do, so far as the Do, it was hard to see that the Do," "the Do," "the Do," and "the Do, the Do, was the Do, so far as it was hard to see that the Do," "the Do," and "the Do, was the Do, and the Do, was the Do, and the Do, was the Do, its own opinion or the Do, its own opinion or the Do's Do, its own opinion or the Do's Do, its own opinion or the Do's Do, its legitimate opinion.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be dismissed due to the lack of all grounds, and since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is unfair, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Jung-ju (Presiding Judge)

Constitution of the Gu

Red Jinho

Site of separate sheet

In addition, ‘Arhumbal Round' of a golf course re-humbalthy

It has come to go beyond the Do of 27 holes in Hapo-si. However, it is not a common issue. The Ministry's recommendation has been made one time, and it is strong to raise the fees in their mind. The fall of the golf industry competitiveness of Jeju-do is no longer easy. It is the 4.6 billion Won is that the company's ethics should be improved in that it is 1,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.