(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Lee Mi-ryeong = A court ruled that Democratic Party lawmaker Seo Mi-hwa, who claimed in a media interview that former standing member of the National Human Rights Commission Kim Yong-won made threatening remarks during a meeting of the Human Rights Commission, is liable for damages for defamation.
According to the legal community on the 11th, Judge Shin Mi-jin of the Seoul Central District Court's Civil Affairs 201 Division ruled on the 18th of last month in a lawsuit claiming damages filed by former member Kim against Rep. Seo and others, saying, "The reporter and media company that published the interview with Rep. Seo must jointly compensate 5 million won."
Rep. Seo, who served as a non-standing member of the Human Rights Commission during the Moon Jae-in administration, said in a media interview in July 2024, "When deliberating the Yellow Envelope Act, former member Kim Yong-won spoke in a threatening tone, saying, 'If things don't go his way, something unimaginable will happen.'"
In the same interview, he also said, "Former Commissioner Kim's words and actions are much more violent. Although he knows well what is human and anti-human rights, he moves in the direction of power."
At the Democratic Party's general meeting in September of the same year, it was said, "Former member Kim was vehemently opposed to the Yellow Envelope Act and the Itaewon Disaster Special Act, and devastated the Human Rights Commission by dismissing Colonel Park Jung-hoon's emergency relief measures as a steal."
Former member Kim Yong-won filed a lawsuit demanding 70 million won in compensation from Rep. Seo Mi-hwa, reporters, and media outlets, claiming that their reputation was damaged by these remarks.
The court acknowledged liability for compensation, saying that the part of his statement, "During the deliberation of the Yellow Envelope Act, he said that if things did not go his way, something unimaginable would happen," contained false facts.
Since the Human Rights Commission's deliberation and resolution of the Yellow Envelope Act occurred before Commissioner Kim was appointed as a standing member, he did not participate in the deliberation, so it was considered false information and content that could lower Commissioner Kim's social evaluation.
The court said, “If you had checked the minutes of the plenary committee meeting before making the statement, you would have known that it was false,” and said of the reporter and media company, “They trusted the content of the statement and reported it as is, without verifying the authenticity.”
Rep. Seo's side claimed, 'It is true that Commissioner Kim made threatening remarks in public at other meetings, and the mistake in the deliberation agenda was only a minor one.' However, the court judged that Commissioner Kim's other remarks were "difficult to view as notices of harm or threatening remarks."
The court also rejected Rep. Seo's claim that 'the interview was conducted at the National Assembly's assembly hall and was subject to immunity because it was intended to verify the qualifications of Commissioner Kim, who was mentioned as a candidate for the Human Rights Commission Chairperson', saying, "It is difficult to view it as an act normally performed incidentally to speaking and voting in the course of duties within the National Assembly."
However, in the same interview, the statement that 'we move in the direction of the wind of power' constitutes an expression of opinion such as a subjective judgment of value, and the statement made at the general meeting of lawmakers did not admit liability, saying that immunity applies.
Former Commissioner Kim and Rep. Seo both appealed against the first trial ruling.
Former Commissioner Kim also filed a lawsuit demanding compensation of 50 million won from former Human Rights Commission Chairman Song Doo-hwan, claiming that the remarks he made targeting him at the plenary committee meeting in February 2024 were false, but it was not accepted.
At the time, former Chairman Song made a statement to the effect that ‘there is little evidence that former member Kim and others discussed it in the subcommittee, and they continued to change their positions based on the opinions of other members dismissing or citing opinions.’ The court judged that “it is difficult to conclude that this is false information.”
