beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
In order to improve national health, the Defendant is an incorporated association established for the purpose of the development of dental medicine, dental care and dental health, the enhancement of intention, the protection of rights, and friendship and welfare among its members. The Plaintiffs are the Defendant’s members as dentists, the Plaintiff A is the director of the Dental department, which is the Nek Work Hospital, and the Plaintiff B is the director of the E division with the above C division.
① Around October 30, 2012, the Defendant distributed the same news report materials as attached Form 1, and ② around November 1, 2012, the same news report materials as attached Form 2.
In addition, on November 10, 2012, the Defendant: (i) distributed the above report materials to the dental technicians affiliated with the Defendant, and (ii) ordered the Defendant to attach the above red leaflets with the size of “dypine” stating the same purport as the report materials, and (iii) to the dental technicians within the dental hospital.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
As to the cause of the claim in this case, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant is obliged to pay consolation money of KRW 50 million per each of the Plaintiffs in order to avoid mental suffering of the Plaintiffs due to this tort, by providing false news report data, such as attached Forms 1 and 2, and posting the former part (A 10) of the same contents to each affiliated dental hospital, thereby impairing the honor of the Plaintiffs, who are members of the Department C and impeding the Plaintiffs’ business.
According to the legal principles stated in Supreme Court Decision 2012Do13189 Decided January 10, 2013, insult or defamation by a so-called collective mark is difficult to interpret that the content of insult or defamation is against a specific person belonging to that group, and in a case where the criticism by a collective mark is assessed to have not reached the degree of impact on the social assessment of each member due to dilution of the degree of criticism, it does not constitute insult or defamation against each member.