NIS Spokesperson's Statement on Possible Pro-North Activities in 'Today’s Humor'... Supreme Court Rules "Not Defamation"

The Supreme Court has ruled that a statement describing the online community site 'Oneul-ui Yoomuh' (Today’s Humor), known for its pro-China tendencies, as "a space where pro-North Korean forces are likely active" cannot be considered defamation against the community.

The term 'Jongbuk' (pro-North Korean) is fluid and variable depending on the temporal and political context or perspective, making it more likely to be seen as a political evaluation or expression of opinion rather than a factual assertion.

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

According to the legal community on the 31st, the Supreme Court’s 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) overturned the lower court’s ruling that ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff 10 million won plus interest in the damages claim lawsuit filed by Mr. Lee, the operator of Oneul-ui Yoomuh, against the state, and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court.

The court stated, "The lower court’s judgment that the pro-North Korean-related remarks in this case constituted defamation by stating facts about the plaintiff was erroneous in its legal interpretation of defamation and failed to conduct necessary investigations, which affected the judgment," as the reason for the reversal and remand.

The spokesperson for the National Intelligence Service (NIS) responded in a media interview on January 28, 2013, when asked whether Oneul-ui Yoomuh was a pro-North Korean site, "There is no such thing as a distinct pro-North Korean site, but (Oneul-ui Yoomuh) is considered a space where pro-North Korean forces or individuals connected to North Korea are likely active."

Mr. Lee claimed that such remarks stigmatized Oneul-ui Yoomuh as a 'pro-North Korean site' and filed a lawsuit against the state and former NIS Director Won Se-hoon, seeking 20 million won in damages. Additionally, Mr. Lee claimed 20 million won in property damages and 10 million won in mental damages, arguing that from 2009 to 2012, the NIS conducted so-called 'comment operations' and other cyber activities on Oneul-ui Yoomuh, causing the site’s post reputation system to collapse and resulting in damages.

The first-instance court dismissed all of Mr. Lee’s claims.

The court first judged, "Based solely on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the cyber activities in this case caused the site’s post system to collapse or other disruptions, or that the plaintiff, as the site operator, suffered property or mental damages as a result."

Furthermore, the court concluded, "While it is acknowledged that the NIS spokesperson stated that there is a high possibility that pro-North Korean forces are active on the site, it cannot be definitively concluded that the site was stigmatized as a 'pro-North Korean site' solely based on that fact."

After losing entirely in the first trial, Mr. Lee appealed only the part of the judgment dismissing the damages claim against the state, reducing the claim amount to 20 million won in consolation damages through a change in the appeal’s purpose. Under the State Compensation Act, Mr. Lee requested the state to pay 100 won in property damages and 20 million won in consolation damages (10 million won for cyber activities and 10 million won for the pro-North Korean remarks).

The second-instance court also did not recognize the state’s liability for property damages caused by the NIS’s cyber activities or pro-North Korean remarks.

However, the second-instance court recognized the liability to pay 10 million won in consolation damages for the pro-North Korean remarks, stating, "The NIS spokesperson’s pro-North Korean remarks damaged the plaintiff’s reputation and social evaluation, constituting defamation, and this was an illegal act committed intentionally or negligently by a public official in the course of duty." The court judged that the spokesperson’s remarks were a factual assertion rather than a mere expression of opinion.

But the Supreme Court’s judgment differed. The Supreme Court held that the NIS spokesperson’s remarks were closer to expressions of opinion than factual assertions, making it difficult to establish defamation.

The court stated, "The remarks in this case were made by the spokesperson in response to a reporter’s question during official duties, and the content clearly shows a reserved and tentative judgment or opinion."

It added, "Considering the circumstances and content of the pro-North Korean remarks, along with the fact that the term 'Jongbuk' is used in very diverse ways and its meaning and scope vary depending on temporal and political situations or perspectives, and that the understanding of the average person and the perception of the person to whom the expression is directed are also variable, making it difficult to objectively determine its meaning, the pro-North Korean remarks in this case are more likely to be seen as a broad political evaluation or expression of opinion about the site rather than a factual assertion."

The court further stated, "Even if the pro-North Korean remarks could be seen as factual assertions, simply using the term 'Jongbuk' cannot be definitively considered defamation against a specific person, and damages liability for defamation can only be recognized if it is proven that the expression objectively damaged the reputation or honor of a specific person. The pro-North Korean remarks in this case merely suggested that some users of the site might be connected to pro-North Korean forces or North Korea, and it is difficult to conclude that the expression specifically referred to the plaintiff, the site operator."

Meanwhile, in 2018, the Supreme Court’s plenary session ruled on a case involving media reports using terms like 'Jongbuk' and 'Jusapa' (pro-Juche faction), stating, "The term 'Jongbuk' began to be used to mean an uncritical follower of North Korea and has been used variously to mean 'anti-state and anti-social forces who believe in Juche ideology and deny the identity and legitimacy of the Republic of Korea,' 'people who show a friendly attitude toward North Korea,' and 'those critical of the government’s hardline policy toward North Korea.' Given the ongoing confrontation between South Korea and North Korea, and changes in South Korea’s North Korea policy, relations with North Korea, North Korea’s stance toward South Korea, and the level of tension between the two, the concept and scope of the term continue to evolve. Therefore, not only the average person but also the person to whom the term is directed may have variable feelings or sensitivities about the term 'Jongbuk,' making it difficult to objectively determine its meaning," the court ruled.

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