이 논문은 대법원 2009. 4. 16. 선고 2008다53812 판결에 대한 평석으로, 인터넷 및 인터넷포털사이트에 대한 규제를 인격권과 언론의 자유의 조화적 해석이라는 관점에서 풀이하고 있다. 대상판결은 인터넷상 명예훼손에 관한 인터넷포털사이트의 법적 책임을 한국적 현실을 수용하여 정립한 데 의미가 있다. 다수의견에 따르면, 인터넷포털사이트는 뉴스에서 명예훼손이 발생할 경우 명예훼손적 기사를 보도한 보도매체와 공동불법행위자로로서 손해배상책임을 부담하며, 댓글에서 명예훼손이 발생할 경우 명예훼손적 글을 작성한 인터넷 이용자와 별도로 사업자로서 관리책임을 인정할 수 있는 요건에 해당할 경우 손해배상책임을 부담한다고 본다. 전자의 경우 인터넷포털사이트에게 손해배상책임을 인정하더라도 표현의 자유에 대한 위축효과가 발생할 가능성은 극히 희박하기 때문에 타당한 해석이다. 논란이 있는 것은 후자의 경우다. 일반적으로 인터넷포털사이트에 대하여 과도하게 손해배상책임을 인정할 경우 인터넷 이용자의 글을 함부로 삭제 및 차단하는 일이 발생할 수 있으며, 이는 표현의 자유에 대한 침해가 될 수 있기 때문이다. 그러나 대상판결이 이러한 결과를 초래할 가능성 역시 희박하다. 인터넷포털사이트에게 손해배상책임을 인정하는 요건이 엄격하기 때문이다. 정제되지 않은 글이 난무하는 우리나라의 댓글 문화에서 이곳을 관리할 책임은 그 공간을 창설ㆍ운영하며 경제적 이익을 얻고 있는 사업자가 지고, 이곳에서 불법행위가 발생할 경우 엄격한 요건 아래 그에게 손해배상책임을 부과하는 것이 정의의 관념에 부합한다고 본다. 대상판결을 토대로 인터넷포털사이트로 하여금 일상적 모니터링을 하도록 법제화할 수 있다고 보는 것은 논리적 비약이다. 대상판결은 일상적 모니터링과 직접 관련이 없다. 불법성이 명백한 게시물의 존재를 인식할 수 있었음이 외관상 명백한 경우에만 불법행위 책임이 인정되기 때문이다. 이는 인터넷포털사이트가 배포자(distributor)로서 활동하면서 불법성이 명백한 게시물의 존재를 알 수 있음이 명백한 경우 이를 관리하라는 의미이며, 출판자(publisher)로서 게시되는 모든 글을 관리할 것을 요구하는 의미가 아니다. 대상판결은 우리 사회에 팽배해 있는, 인터넷 지상주의 또는 인터넷포털사이트 규제불가론이라는 막연한 환상에서 벗어나 인터넷과 인터넷포털사이트의 공과를 현실적으로 검토하였다는 점에도 큰 의미가 있다. 대상판결은 인터넷에 대한 규제, 특히 인터넷포털사이트에 대한 규제가 항상 표현의 자유에 대한 침해를 일으키는 것처럼 인식하는 사고의 전환을 촉구하고 있다.

On April 16, 2009, the Supreme Court of Korea made a historical decision on web portal sites' defamation liability for internet users' writings. The Court was divided into two in their opinions, though all Justices agreed on the holding that the defendants, the four largest internet portals in Korea, should award damages to the plaintiff, the victim of online defamation. The plaintiff brought suit alleging that he had been libeled by numerous news articles provided by web portals along with comments written by web portal subscribers on bulletin board. The Court held that web portals should be regarded as publishers in their news services, but as distributors in their bulletin board services. Web portals are responsible for news articles like news agencies as they keep editorial control power. I do not think this holding will cause any chilling effect on free speech. For web portals can transfer their financial burdens to news agencies by the contract. More serious issue here is not that who is responsible, but that how much damages will be awarded. As for the bulletin board services, web portals are not responsible for the comments by internet users unless special conditions are met. The majority opinion introduced four prong test: First, online postings should be clear to identify illegality. Second, there should be direct request from alleged victims to take down or remove them. Third, in case of no direct request, online intermediaries such as web portals know or must have known that illegal comments are posted. Fourth, it is economically and technically possible to remove them. Minority opinion differs in the third condition. Three Justices argued that the third condition should be deleted as it might cause a chilling effect on online free speech and lead to a mandatory monitoring system. However, I do not think the four prong test will infringe freedom of speech and private censorship will be exercised everyday in web portals. For the four prong test is not easy to met and the damages is too small for web portals to change their business model. The total amount of money awarded to the victim in this case is 150,000 U.S. dollars, 160,000,000 Korean won. Punitive damages are not introduced in Korea. 50,000 dollars, the each web portal should pay for the damages, will not make portals change their behavior, let alone business model. Considering small amount of damages and small percentage of filing a lawsuit, it is fair to put some constraints on the intermediaries for the dignity right of defamed victims. Despite sharp arguments in the Court, I believe the case without request of removing illegal writings is not common. Much more tough case will be the case with clear request and some ground. The Case has not mentioned anything about it.

On April 16, 2009, the Supreme Court of Korea made a historical decision on web portal sites' defamation liability for internet users' writings. The Court was divided into two in their opinions, though all Justices agreed on the holding that the defendants, the four largest internet portals in Korea, should award damages to the plaintiff, the victim of online defamation. The plaintiff brought suit alleging that he had been libeled by numerous news articles provided by web portals along with comments written by web portal subscribers on bulletin board. The Court held that web portals should be regarded as publishers in their news services, but as distributors in their bulletin board services. Web portals are responsible for news articles like news agencies as they keep editorial control power. I do not think this holding will cause any chilling effect on free speech. For web portals can transfer their financial burdens to news agencies by the contract. More serious issue here is not that who is responsible, but that how much damages will be awarded. As for the bulletin board services, web portals are not responsible for the comments by internet users unless special conditions are met. The majority opinion introduced four prong test: First, online postings should be clear to identify illegality. Second, there should be direct request from alleged victims to take down or remove them. Third, in case of no direct request, online intermediaries such as web portals know or must have known that illegal comments are posted. Fourth, it is economically and technically possible to remove them. Minority opinion differs in the third condition. Three Justices argued that the third condition should be deleted as it might cause a chilling effect on online free speech and lead to a mandatory monitoring system. However, I do not think the four prong test will infringe freedom of speech and private censorship will be exercised everyday in web portals. For the four prong test is not easy to met and the damages is too small for web portals to change their business model. The total amount of money awarded to the victim in this case is 150,000 U.S. dollars, 160,000,000 Korean won. Punitive damages are not introduced in Korea. 50,000 dollars, the each web portal should pay for the damages, will not make portals change their behavior, let alone business model. Considering small amount of damages and small percentage of filing a lawsuit, it is fair to put some constraints on the intermediaries for the dignity right of defamed victims. Despite sharp arguments in the Court, I believe the case without request of removing illegal writings is not common. Much more tough case will be the case with clear request and some ground. The Case has not mentioned anything about it.

, , , , , , ,

freedom of speech, private censorship, internet, web portals, defamation, chilling effect, internet service provider, torts, mandatory monitoring