University Student Sued for 100 Million Won in Damages
Wins Both First and Appellate Trials
Supported by Korea Legal Aid Corporation
A university student who commented "It was a waste of money" in response to a question about the effectiveness of an online lecture on an internet forum was sued for criminal defamation and faced a civil claim for 100 million won in damages, but won both the first and second trials.
The court found that the student's comment, posted after personally attending the lecture, was an expression of opinion stating "the lecture was unsatisfactory," and therefore could not be considered defamation or obstruction of business against the lecture operator.
According to the Korea Legal Aid Corporation (Chairman Kim Youngjin) on July 30, the Seoul Western District Court Civil Division 2-2 (Presiding Judge Lee Seokjae) dismissed the appeal filed by the operator of the online lecture company, referred to as A, and others, against university student B in a damages lawsuit, upholding the first trial's ruling in favor of the defendant.
In August 2021, B posted on a Naver Cafe, "Does anyone know about OO? I'm thinking of trying it and would like to hear from those with experience. There’s so little information." On the same day, B registered as a member on the online lecture site operated by A and transferred a tuition fee of 300,000 won for August.
Afterward, B attended the online lectures and received learning coaching via KakaoTalk.
Several months later, C, after reading B's post, commented, "Have you tried OO by any chance?" B replied, "Yes, I have!"
C then asked, "How was it? Did you find it effective? It seems to focus on solving problems... It looks like they have you solve problems first without reviewing concepts, which is different from what I’ve done before, so I’m hesitating."
On March 25, 2022, B responded with the comment, "It was a waste of money."
A and others contacted C via Naver message, requesting the comment be deleted, and C complied. B’s reply to C’s question was also automatically deleted.
Later, on September 14, 2022, B posted again on the forum, asking for information about lectures on the site operated by A.
Two days later, on September 16, 2022, A and others sent B a message via KakaoTalk saying, "So it was you? The name and number match," among other things. In response, B commented on their own post, "I've blocked you, so don't bother threatening to sue. If you have something to say, leave a comment^^." Shortly after, B also commented, "Be careful if you comment. The academy threatens to sue."
A and others filed a criminal complaint against B for defamation and obstruction of business, and also filed a civil lawsuit seeking 100 million won in damages.
In court, A and others argued that they had provided B with free lectures, supplementary classes, learning materials, and even personal counseling by phone, making every effort to assist B’s studies.
They further claimed, "B has never attended an offline academy and thus has no knowledge of how academy instruction works or whether it is effective, yet posted a comment as if there was no effect at all," and asserted that their sales had sharply declined as a result.
However, the court's judgment was different.
Judge Lee Kwangyeol of the Seoul Western District Court, who presided over the first trial, ruled in January last year, "The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed," siding with B.
Judge Lee stated, "B paid a tuition fee of 300,000 won and attended the online lectures for about four months, but as only problem-solving videos were provided, there was no difference from self-study, and there was no Q&A or one-on-one mentoring. It is therefore recognized that B felt the money was wasted and posted such a comment."
He continued, "The comment 'It was a waste of money' posted by B is an expression of opinion or evaluation that the lecture was unsatisfactory, and thus cannot be regarded as defamation or obstruction of business."
Regarding B posting again after C deleted their comment at A’s request, resulting in B’s comment also being deleted, Judge Lee said, "This raises suspicion that the defendant may have intended to interfere with the plaintiffs’ business or defame them," and noted, "The defendant claims to have posted to gather more information or reviews for a younger sibling preparing for the College Scholastic Ability Test, but this is hard to believe."
Nevertheless, Judge Lee also stated, "According to the submitted evidence, the plaintiffs sent C a message saying, 'You know this kind of sneaky, harmful behavior is a crime, right? You have some nerve. Our lawyer and the police cyber investigation team are currently reviewing your previous post. Both civil and criminal proceedings are underway. We have captured the screen for our lawyer. Please delete the post immediately.' It is recognized that C conveyed this message to the defendant."
He further stated, "It is recognized that the plaintiffs sent messages such as 'So it was you, the name and number match, a warrant has been issued' on September 16, 2022, and 'I thought you blocked me, but you read it' on September 20, 2022, after confirming the defendant's new post. Therefore, the comments B posted on September 29 and October 27, 2022, can be seen as responses to the plaintiffs’ messages."
A and others, who lost the first trial, appealed. However, the damages claim was reduced from the original 100 million won to 45 million won, arguing that compensation was due for the revenue decrease in 2022 compared to 2021.
However, the judgment of the second trial court was the same as the first.
The appellate court accepted most of the first trial's reasoning, with only minor supplements.
The court also stated, "The plaintiffs claim that the defendant colluded with C and posted malicious comments like a stalker for over a year, causing significant damage, but the evidence submitted is insufficient to support this claim, and there is no other evidence to prove it."
Meanwhile, regarding the criminal complaint for defamation and obstruction of business filed by A and others against B, the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office issued a non-prosecution decision on June 21, 2023. A and others appealed to the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, but the appeal was dismissed, and their application for a judicial review at the Seoul High Court was also rejected.
Attorney Eom Uk of the Korea Legal Aid Corporation, who represented B in this lawsuit, stated, "This ruling confirms that consumers' reviews and evaluations online should be respected as freedom of expression," and added, "It is significant that the court broadly recognized freedom of expression and thus protected consumers' rights."
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
