Plaintiff

News Korea Ltd.

December 4, 2014

1. The defendant shall pay 3,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 97/100 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 100,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff is a motion picture supervisor who supervised △△△△△△△△△△△, a motion picture with the content that the mother is able to kill the perpetrator and kill the perpetrator for the multiple couples of a suicide, and the Defendant is an online newspaper-based online newspaper-based online newspaper-basedcom (website address omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply).

B. Criminal complaint against the plaintiff

1) On March 9, 2005, the Plaintiff was married with Nonparty 1 and set up Nonparty 2 under the supervision of Nonparty 1. However, since around 2008, Nonparty 1 commenced to attend the church of the “Woldo World Uniforming Korea Association” from around 2008. The Plaintiff thought that the above church was carrying out the conclusion of the church, and, in particular, Nonparty 2 strongly demanded Nonparty 1 to leave the above church.

2) 소외 1은 2014. 1. 3. 서울 ◇◇경찰서에,「원고는 2013. 2. 9. 아들인 소외 2가 보는 앞에서 소외 1에게 “정신병자, 미친년, 너 죽고 나 죽자”라는 욕을 하면서 소외 1의 머리를 벽에 찧고 소외 1의 가슴과 어깨를 밀쳐 벽에 부딪치게 하고 목을 졸랐을 뿐 아니라 싱크대 문을 부수고, 길이 40㎝ 정도의 부엌칼로 소외 1을 죽이려는 등의 행위로 전치 2주의 상해를 가하였다」는 고소사실(이하 ‘이 사건 1 고소사실’이라 한다)로 원고를 폭행죄 및 재물손괴죄로 고소하고, 아들인 소외 2의 고소대리인으로 「원고는 2013. 1. 12. 및 2013. 1. 19. 소외 2를 안방에 감금하였고, 2013. 2. 9. 소외 2로 하여금 이 사건 1 고소사실과 같이 원고가 소외 1을 폭행하는 장면을 보게 하는 등 아동의 정신건강 및 발달에 해를 끼치는 행위를 하였다」는 고소사실(이하 ‘이 사건 2 고소사실’이라 한다)로 원고를 아동복지법 위반죄로 고소하였다.

3) Nonparty 1 admitted Nonparty 2 to a protection facility for victims of domestic violence from February 13, 2013 with Nonparty 2 and did not contact with the Plaintiff.

4) In order to find Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, the Plaintiff contacted Nonparty 1’s wife, and on June 10, 2013, filed a divorce lawsuit against Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “instant divorce lawsuit”) with Seoul Family Court 2013rddan42789, but even during the said lawsuit, the Plaintiff could not have known Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s residence and contact address.

5) On February 3, 2014, the Plaintiff discovered an elementary school accompanying Nonparty 2, and took Nonparty 2 back to Nonparty 2, and received a mental diagnosis at the hospital.

6) On February 3, 2014, Nonparty 1 filed a complaint with the Seoul △△ Police Station; around 09:00 on February 3, 2014, Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff, along with her mother, her mother, and her mother, forced Nonparty 2 to take the vehicle into force. The Plaintiff was pushed Nonparty 1 and removed from the vehicle. During that process, Nonparty 1’s hand, etc. were charged with assault, abduction, etc. (hereinafter “instant accusation”).

C. Report of each of the articles of this case

1) On February 5, 2014, the Defendant: (a) under the title of “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△” supervising the Plaintiff and being investigated at the time of finding the Plaintiff, and (b) was placed in the Seoul △△△△△ Police Station on the charge of assault and property damage; (c) was placed in the Seoul △△△△ Police Station after being investigated on the charge of assault and property damage; and (d) was accused of assault and assault against the Defendant. On the charge of domestic violence victim protection facilities operated by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family during the investigation, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge of assault and assault. On the charge of the violation of the Child Welfare Act by abusing the ○○ Gun, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Defendant that ○○○○△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△’s supervision, together with her mother and female students, exercised violence against the ○○○○.

2) Upon reporting the same contents as the instant news article by the Defendant and other media companies, the Plaintiff issued an order to the effect that “At present, the court will take the son into the hospital to implement the mental assessment judgment of ○C and son in the divorce lawsuit” at the interview with other media companies.

3) On February 11, 2014, the Defendant’s assertion that the court ordered the other party’s mental assessment to the original and the Defendant for a divorce suit as a result of confirmation of the title, “the motion picture supervising the Plaintiff suspected of assault,” and “the court’s mental assessment order of his wife and children,” was confirmed to be inconsistent with the procedures for family litigation. The Defendant posted an article identical to the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant two articles”).

D. Results of the disposition against the plaintiff

1) On March 11, 2014, the prosecutor in charge of the fact of the instant complaint No. 2 issued a non-prosecution disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that Nonparty 1 withdrawn the accusation and refused to make a statement.

2) On April 30, 2014, the prosecutor in charge of the instant complaint No. 1 filed a claim for a summary order regarding the non-prosecution of “defluence of evidence” and the injury to property. The Plaintiff was subject to a summary order of KRW 300,00 with Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 201Da59333, supra.

3) On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a formal trial with Seoul Southern District Court 2014Ra1816 on the above summary order, but on August 9, 2014, the said court convicted Nonparty 1 of a fine of KRW 300,000 on the charge of criminal facts, the Plaintiff convicted Nonparty 1 of the said fact that: (a) while Nonparty 1 was in dispute with Nonparty 1’s residence for religious problems, Nonparty 1 “ps and arms of Nonparty 1, who were in the toilet due to his/her hand, she moved in the toilet; (b) he/she led Nonparty 1’s hand and arms; and (c) he/she was faced with his/her head by being sealed with Nonparty 1 for about two weeks of medical treatment; and (d) on the other hand, the Plaintiff was convicted of a fine of KRW 300,000 for a crime.

4) Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed to Seoul Southern District Court 2014No1400 and is still pending in the appellate court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 4, 14, 15 evidence, Eul 4 through 8, Eul 30 evidence (including partial numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

① The Defendant, via the instant article 1, habitually assaulted Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who was the Plaintiff’s wife, and ② by pointing out false facts with regard to the suspicion that the Plaintiff captured Nonparty 2 via the instant article 2, thereby impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation by pointing out false facts. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress. The Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as compensation for damages.

B. Defendant

Even if each of the articles of this case damaged the plaintiff's reputation, the contents of each of the articles of this case are true, and the defendant reported each of the articles of this case for public interest purposes such as the seriousness of domestic violence and the demand for improvement measures. Therefore, its illegality is dismissed.

3. Determination

A. Whether defamation is established

1) First, we examine whether each of the instant articles impairs the Plaintiff’s reputation by pointing out false facts.

A) In a case where the reputation of another person is damaged by making a statement of fact through the media and the publication, when the Plaintiff claims damages by asserting that the alleged fact was false or false as the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is liable to prove the falsity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da58823, Jan. 24, 2008).

B) It is insufficient to recognize that the contents of each of the instant articles were false or false, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that the Defendant injured the Plaintiff’s reputation by pointing out false facts is groundless.

2) However, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant does not only seek compensation for damages sustained by the Plaintiff by publicly alleging false facts, but also seek compensation for defamation incurred by the entire content of each of the instant articles. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages is deemed to include the purport of seeking compensation for defamation (in a case where reputation is damaged by disclosing false facts and true facts, tort is established

The contents of the article 1 of this case indicate the facts alleged to have been accused of committing assaulting the plaintiff's wife while investigating the plaintiff's abuse and committing assaulting the plaintiff's abuse. The contents of the article 2 of this case indicate the plaintiff's false assertion that the plaintiff made a mental judgment of the court when ordering the part against which the plaintiff was accused of assaulting and kidnapping, and that the plaintiff implemented the mental judgment of the court. Thus, the report of each of the articles of this case constitutes a tort by defamation against the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. Whether the illegality is denied

1) Relevant legal principles

Even in cases where an act of impairing other person’s reputation by publishing a fact through the press and publishing, if it is proved that it is true fact solely for the public interest, there is no illegality of such act. Moreover, even if there is no proof, it is not unlawful if the actor has a considerable reason to believe it as true (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da35199, May 12, 2006; 2005Da58823, Jan. 24, 2008). Further, if the act of impairing other person’s reputation as a reason for excluding illegality is deemed to constitute “an act of damaging other person’s reputation, which is solely for the public interest,” it means that the alleged fact is objectively related to the public interest, and if the actor’s major purpose or motive is for the public interest, it shall not be deemed that the actor’s motive or motive is for the public interest, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the actor has any more motive or motive to harm other person’s reputation than 2070.

2) Determination

A) Determination as to the instant one engineer

In light of the following circumstances, Gap 4, 14, 15, and 16's overall purport of each statement and pleading, i.e., the article 1 of this case, stating that "the father of the plaintiff 1 filed a complaint with his father of this case 1 through 3," is true, or generally, that the plaintiff 1 filed a complaint with the above contents in favor of the defendant. ② The article 1 of this case, "the supervisor of the plaintiff 1 did not go on the so-called "the head of ○," ○, and 2 of this case's article 1 of this case's article 1 of this case's article 1 of this case's article 1 of this case's article 1 of this case's article 1 of this case's article 2 of this case's article 1 of this case's article 1 of this case's article 2 of this case's article 1 of this case's 1 and 2 of this case's article 1 of this case's article 2 of this case's order for non-party 1's mental treatment.

B) Determination as to the instant two engineers

(1) Public interest part

It is reasonable to view that the contents of the instant two articles were erroneous in the Plaintiff’s assertion that the court rendered a mental appraisal judgment as to the part against which Nonparty 2 was prosecuted due to the charge of kidnapping, and that there was a public interest purpose to correct erroneous information and satisfy the citizen’s right to know. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s damage therefrom is merely aware of the Plaintiff’s somewhat erroneous assertion that the reader made a little wrong assertion, and the degree is relatively minor. Therefore, the act of reporting the instant two articles constitutes public interest.

(ii)the authenticity or reasonableness parts;

According to each statement of the evidence Nos. 41 and 43 (including partial numbers), the plaintiff stated that "the court has taken to son to implement a mental appraisal judgment on his or her wife and children" to another press organization, and that there is no procedure that the court orders the plaintiff and the defendant to make a mental appraisal of the other party or the person related to the case and forced the other party to take it to this end. According to the above facts acknowledged, the contents of the article No. 2 of this case are true.

(3) Therefore, the act of reporting the instant article 2 is for the public interest, and it is proved that the contents of the article are true facts, and thus, the illegality is dismissed. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is justified.

C. Scope of damages caused by the instant news report

Since it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered considerable mental pain due to the publication and report of the article 1 of this case, the defendant is obliged to compensate for the damage caused by the plaintiff's mental pain.

Furthermore, as to the amount of damages, the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the Plaintiff should be determined as KRW 3,000,000, in full view of various circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, including the health team, the Defendant’s share in and social influence in the press, the Plaintiff’s social status, the degree of damages to the Plaintiff, the purpose of

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 3,000,000 to the plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Hong-han (Presiding Judge)