"She's My Office Wife," Vice Principal's Remark in Front of Colleagues Leads to 7 Million Won Compensation

Vice Principal: "Meaning of a Close Female Colleague"

An assistant principal who repeatedly made sexually harassing remarks such as calling a female employee his 'office wife' was found guilty of defamation and subsequently ordered to pay damages.

According to the legal community on the 7th, Mr. A, an assistant principal at a middle school in Busan, made remarks in the teachers' office in November 2019 to other teachers, referring to female employee Ms. B as his office wife.

[Photo is unrelated to the article. Image source=Getty Images Bank]

Mr. A's inappropriate remarks were not isolated incidents. From June 2019 to May 2020, he repeatedly made sexual comments to other male teachers in the presence of Ms. B.

Ms. B filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. A. The prosecution recognized the defamation charge only for the 'office wife' remark and filed a summary indictment in November of the same year. The court issued a summary order in January 2021, imposing a fine of 1 million KRW. Mr. A requested a formal trial.

Mr. A claimed, "The term 'office wife' was used merely to mean a close female colleague at work. There was no intention to insult Ms. B."

The first trial court found Mr. A guilty of defamation and sentenced him to a fine of 1 million KRW. Mr. A appealed, but the second trial court upheld the same verdict. Mr. A further appealed to the Supreme Court, where the case is currently under review.

Separately, Ms. B filed a civil lawsuit in 2021 seeking 30 million KRW in damages from Mr. A. The Busan District Court Civil Division 8 (Presiding Judge Kim Do-gyun) ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Mr. A to pay Ms. B 7 million KRW.

The court stated, "By calling Ms. B 'office wife,' Mr. A created a situation that could be mistaken as implying an illicit relationship. In fact, the term appears to be used with such connotations. It is difficult to believe that Mr. A, as a teacher, was unaware of this meaning."

Furthermore, the court noted, "Considering the context of the conversation in which the term was used, it appears to have been a sexually harassing joke. The other remarks also suggest an implicit and indirect intent to sexually harass Ms. B."

Regarding the relatively low amount of compensation for emotional distress, the court explained, "Considering that Mr. A lost his teaching position after over 30 years of service and faced criminal penalties, and that the sexual harassment or molestation was not deemed to be of a very serious degree."

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