"Former Admiral Who Destroyed 'Park Geun-hye Caricature' Ordered to Pay Painting Fee and Compensation"

"Acts Infringing Moral Rights of Artists Represented by Artworks"
1st Trial Awards Only Painting Price... 2nd Trial Says "Emotional Damage Likely Greater"

[Asia Economy Reporter Yoo Byung-don] The court has ruled that a retired naval admiral who damaged a nude satirical painting of former President Park Geun-hye at a National Assembly exhibition must compensate for the painting's value and pay damages.

The Seoul Southern District Court Civil Appeals Division 2 (Chief Judge Song Young-hwan) announced on the 15th that in the appeal trial of a damages claim lawsuit filed by artist Lee Gu-young against retired admirals Shim (66) and Mok (61), the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff a total of 9 million KRW, including 4 million KRW for the painting's value and 5 million KRW for damages, partially ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

On January 24, 2017, Shim removed Lee's painting "Dirty Sleep" from the wall in the lobby on the first floor of the National Assembly Members' Office Building in Yeouido, Seoul, and threw it on the floor, damaging the frame. Mok, who was nearby, separated the painting from the frame on the floor, crumpled the painting, and broke the frame. The painting parodied French artist ?douard Manet's "Olympia," combining the face of former President Park Geun-hye onto a nude woman lying on a bed.

The artist Lee, whose work was damaged, filed a lawsuit demanding a total of 14 million KRW, including 4 million KRW for the painting's value and 10 million KRW in damages.

In the first trial last year, the court ordered Shim and others to pay 4 million KRW, the "fair market value" of the painting, but dismissed the damages claim, stating that "it cannot be recognized that artist Lee suffered mental damage."

However, the second trial ruled that "mental damage cannot be compensated solely by property damages, and in fact, mental damage is greater than property damage," ordering payment of damages.

The court explained the ruling, stating, "The defendants' actions constitute property damage and infringe on the moral rights of the artist who created the artwork. The defendants publicly damaged the work in front of journalists and the public with the intent of severe insult and contempt."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.