"Forced Laborer Statue, Japanese Model"... Supreme Court Rules "No Defamation of Sculptor"

Conflicting Lower Court Rulings on 'Defamation Liability'
Supreme Court: "Need for Cautious Evaluation of Defamation"

The Supreme Court has ruled that the claim that the Forced Laborer Statue was modeled after a Japanese person cannot be considered defamation.

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul.

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Judge Ahn Cheol-sang) on the 30th upheld the lower court's ruling that dismissed the damages lawsuit filed by sculptor couple Kim Un-seong and Kim Seo-gyeong, who created the Forced Laborer Statue, against Lee Woo-yeon, a researcher at the Nakseongdae Institute of Economic Research and co-author of "Anti-Japan Tribalism."

Additionally, the same panel overturned the lower court's ruling that recognized defamation liability in the damages lawsuit filed by the Kim couple against lawyer Kim So-yeon (former Daejeon City Council member) and remanded the case back to the appellate court.

The Kim couple created the Forced Laborer Statue in 2016 to commemorate victims of forced labor under Japanese rule and installed it near a mine shaft in Kyoto, Japan. Subsequently, statues were installed sequentially across the country, including in Seoul and Busan.

However, lawyer Kim and researcher Lee posted on Facebook and distributed press releases, as well as made statements at rallies and press conferences, claiming that the statue was actually modeled not after a Korean but a Japanese person. The Kim couple filed a damages lawsuit, arguing that these false claims damaged their reputation.

The lower courts delivered conflicting judgments. In the case against lawyer Kim, the first trial court dismissed all of the Kim couple's claims for damages. However, the appellate court ruled that "although the defendants were unaware of the statue's creation process, they used definitive expressions that could be mistaken for objectively verified facts, and there was no circumstance to believe that the content was true," ordering the defendants to pay 2 million won each to the Kim couple.

In the case involving researcher Lee, the first trial court ruled in favor of the Kim couple, but the appellate court stated, "The statements in this case are likely expressions of opinion that the statue resembles photos of Japanese laborers," and did not accept all of the Kim couple's claims.

The Supreme Court judged that the statements surrounding the statue were not factual assertions but expressions of opinion or suspicions presenting specific circumstances, and thus did not defame the Kim couple.

The court stated, "It is necessary to be cautious in evaluating whether specific factual assertions meet the requirements for defamation," and "Even if the statements in this case were not based on true facts, there is a strong possibility that the defendants had reasonable grounds to believe the content was true at the time of the statements."

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