공적 인물에 대한 명예훼손 : 공직자를 제외한 공적 인물에 한정하여

권태상(Tae Sang Kwon) 한국비교사법학회 2015 비교사법 Vol.22 No.2

미국에서는 공적 인물에 대한 명예훼손에 현실적 악의 기준이 적용된다. 그 결과 공적 인물은 상대방의 현실적 악의를 입증하지 못하는 한 손해배상을 받을 수 없다. 우리나라에서는 공적 사안의 경우 언론의 자유에 대한 제한이 완화되는데, 원고가 공적 인물인지 여부는 문제된 사안의 성격을 판단하는 과정에서 고려된다. 영어의 “public”은 대중적이라는 의미도 가지므로, 미국의 “public figure”는 넓은 범위에서 인정된다. 그러나 우리나라에서는 “공적”이라는 단어가 좁은 의미를 가지므로, 공적 인물을 좁은 범위에서 인정하는 것이 합리적이다. 우리나라에서는 원고를 공적 인물로 인정하지 않더라도 기존 법리의 공공성 요건에 의하여 명예훼손 행위의 위법성이 조각될 수 있으므로, 공적 인물의 범위를 넓혀야 할 필요성도 크지 않다. 미국 판례는 원고의 신분을 기준으로 삼았으나, 실제로는 표현의 내용이 영향을 미치고 있다. 특히 제한적 공적 인물을 인정하기 위해서는 공적 논쟁 요건이 충족되어야 하므로, 이는 원고의 신분만을 기준으로 한 개념으로 보기 어렵다. 미국 판례가 취한 방법은 예측 가능성을 높이는 결과를 가져왔다고 보기 어렵다. 공적 사안에서 언론의 자유를 넓게 보장하는 이유가 특정인에 대한 진술이 아니라 공적 주제에 대한 진술을 보호하기 위한 것이라는 점을 고려하면, 표현의 내용을 기준으로 삼는 것이 바람직하다. 우리나라 판결들이 원고의 신분을 하나의 요소로 고려하면서 표현의 내용을 중시하는 방법을 취한 것은 바람직하다고 평가할 수 있으며, 우리나라에서 제한적 공적 인물과 같은 불명확한 개념을 도입할 필요는 없을 것이다. 표현의 내용을 기준으로 삼는 경우 예측 가능성이 낮아진다는 문제가 있을 수 있다. 그러나 우리나라의 판결은 공적 사안에서 언론의 자유에 대한 제한이 완화되어야 한다는 법리를 표현의 유형에 따라 구체화하였으므로, 예측 가능성의 요청을 상당 정도 충족시킬 수 있을 것으로 보인다. 또한 원고가 언론사인 경우에 한정하여 원고의 신분을 기준으로 법리를 구체화하기도 하였다. 우리나라 판결이 취하고 있는 유형별 구체화는 예측 가능성을 높이므로 바람직하다고 평가할 수 있는데, 앞으로도 계속 진행되어야 할 것이다. In USA, public figure can not recover damages for a defamatory falsehood unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice. In Korea, freedom of speech are widely protected in public case, and the status of public figure is one factor to consider in determining the nature of case. In Korea, the word “public” has narrower sense than in USA, so it is reasonable to recognize public figure in narrow scope. Although plaintiff is not public figure, defamatory statement about him can be exempt from responsibility if that statement has public character. So it is unnecessary to extend the scope of public figure. In USA, case law has adopted status-based approach to enhance predictability but the results are not satisfactory. Contents of expression have influenced case law continuously. For example, plaintiff can be classified as a limited public figure only when public controversy exists. Considering the purpose of special protection of free speech in public case, content-based approach is appropriate. Supreme Court of Korea seems to be more concerned with contents of expression than status of plaintiff. This approach is proper and there is no need to adopt the unclear concept of a limited public figure. Supreme Court of Korea has embodied protection of free speech according to types of expression. This method can enhance predictability and should be developed continuously.

인터넷상 명예훼손에 대한 인터넷 서비스 제공자의 민사책임 -대법원 2009. 4. 16. 선고 2008다53812 전원합의체 판결-

권태상 ( Tae Sang Kwon ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2012 법학논집 Vol.17 No.2

When there is an illegal internet positing such as defaming others, it raises the issue of responsibility of Internet Service Provider. In the common law of the United States and Germany, the range of responsibilities of Internet Service Providers differs by the level of their controls over the contents posted on the internet. On the other hands, both the United States and Germany limit the responsibility of the internet service providers by law. The Supreme Court of Korea decided on this matter in 2009. This Study examined the liability rule of Internet Service Provider in this decision. As for news services, it`s possible to regard defendants in this case as publisher of those news according to fact, therefore they have to take responsibility as publisher of the news. Accordingly, it seems appropriate that this decision admitted responsibility of defendants for defamatory news on the web considering that they were aware of the contents and selected and distributed them actively. However, not all the news in this case can be considered as defamation and the plaintiff is not specified in all the news. As for the bulletin board services, to help the victims, it requires to ask Internet Service Providers responsibility for illegal postings if they are able to recognize them even though they are not aware of them. However, it seems desirable to limit the range of the responsibility since it can lead to chilling effect on the freedom of expression by monitoring of Internet Service Providers. It seems reasonable having restricted the responsibility of Internet Service Providers in Majority Opinion of this decisions by requiring obvious illegality and apparent obviousness of the possibility of recognition in order to delete defamatory content on the internet. However, such decisions were made on the contents with obvious illegality, so it is not appropriate to apply them as general standard to liability of Internet Service Providers.

공직자에 대한 명예훼손

권태상 ( Tae Sang Kwon ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2014 법학논집 Vol.19 No.1

This study aims to examine standard of defamation against public official. Supreme Court of the United States declared actual malice standard in 1964. According to this standard, a public official can not recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice, that is with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. This standard made the press freely criticize public official and government. In Korea, Supreme Court declared new standard of defamation against public official recently. According to this standard, a person who made a statement about morality, integrity or official conduct of public official is not subject to liability unless statement is malicious or highly improper attack. Korean standard is not identical with actual malice standard, but it has the same purpose as that of actual malice standard. Korean standard should be regarded as making new and independent defense which is based on freedom of expression. Judgements of Supreme Courts seem to understand Korean standard in this way. The requirement that statement is not malicious or highly improper attack should be regarded as satisfied when the statement has some reasonable basis, but more judgements should be accumulated.

개인정보에 관한 인격권과 표현의 자유 -대법원 2011. 9. 2. 선고 2008다42430 전원합의체 판결-

권태상 ( Tae Sang Kwon ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2013 법학논집 Vol.18 No.1

This paper examines a case in which defendant operated a website providing personal information of plaintiffs. In this case, plaintiffs have the constitutional right to informational self-determination and defendant has the constitutional right of free expression. The effect of constitutional rights on private law is explained by indirect effect theory, but this can be more clearly explained by the function of protection order of constitutional rights. When the right of plaintiffs and the right of defendant collide, balancing of interests is necessary. It is difficult to decide which right is superior on abstract level because both rights can be understood as personality rights in private law. On concrete level, the result is as in the following. As regards win-rate index and professionality index, case information is public in nature, and therefore plaintiff`s right to informational self-determination should be restricted within narrow limits. Defendant has the right to express and deliver his opinion on case information. Collection of case information is legal because case information is open to the public. As a result, defendant`s service of win-rate index and professionality index is legal. The Supreme Court also decided that defendant`s service of win-rate index and professionality index did not infringe plaintiff`s personality rights. As regards personal connections index, profiles of plaintiffs are open to the public and objects of right to know and therefore plaintiff`s right to informational self-determination should be restricted within narrow limits. Defendant has the right to express and deliver his opinion on profiles of plaintiffs. Personal connections index can be regarded as opinion, and opinion should be protected broadly by the right of free expression. Defendant has purpose to make profit but this does not make defendant`s service unreasonable. As a result, defendant`s service of personal connections index is legal. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court decided defendant`s service of personal connections index infringed plaintiffs` personality rights but this opinion seems improper.

미국 퍼블리시티권(The Right of Publicity)의 개념과 보호대상 -캘리포니아주와 뉴욕주를 중심으로-

권태상 ( Tae Sang Kwon ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2010 법학논총 Vol.34 No.1

In California, common law right of publicity is recognized and the contents of the right of publicity has been expanded by this. California Civil Code stipulates Person, and this term is interpreted as real human person. Therefore, the person who are protected by the right of publicity has been restricted to real human person. Protected aspects of personal identity are broad because common law right of publicity is applicable where California Civil Code does not cover. Accordingly, the statute do not need to be interpreted broadly. In New York, common law right of publicity is not recognized and the right of publicity must fit within the New York statute. The statute stipulates any living person, so the person who are protected by the right of publicity is restricted to real human person. Also, protected aspects of personal identity are provided by the statute. Now, the statute stipulates name, portrait, picture or voice as protected aspects of personal identity. Sometimes the statute is interpreted broadly, but that is not always the case. In Korea, the right of publicity is not stipulated in the statute. However, the number of judgements that recognize the right of publicity is increasing and the contents of the right of publicity is expanding. But, in America, each States take different position about the recognition, scope, and contents of the right of publicity. In New York, the right of publicity is recognized within the statute. Therefore, in Korea, we should examine carefully whether the right of publicity is appropriate and how the contents of the right of publicity should be determined. Especially, we should examine above problems from the study of the relation of the right of publicity to personality right.

해방 이후 북한의 사회주의 이행노선 논쟁연구 전후 급진적 사회주의 이행의 기원

권태상 ( Kwon Tae Sang ) 동국대학교 북한학연구소 2017 북한학연구 Vol.13 No.1

This study examines the debating of the implementation of North Korean socialists after liberation. we distinguish between “non-capitalist development theory” and “capitalism to socialist transition theory” based on the discussions of Marx and Lenin on the transition of socialism. And this theory is compared with the socialist implementation routes such as Soviet armed forces, Chosun Communist Party, anchurian partisan groups, and China Communist `Yen-an` groups. In addition, according to the position of each socialist group, the process of the debating which was developed during the period was summarized by focusing on the land reform, the establishment contest of the Chosun Labor Party, and the Second Congress of the Chosun Labor Party. As a result, the Soviet Union did not intend to shift rapidly to socialism based on the “theory of non - capitalist development”, and Manchuria partisan groups and China Communist `Yen-an` groups were also following “non - capitalist development”. The Chosun Communist Party was in the position of “Socialist Transition in Capitalism”. However, during the period of land reform, the Chosun Communist Party changed its position according to the intention of the Soviet Union, but its influence still influenced the activities of the Chosun Communist Party. Until the establishment of the Chosun Labor Party, the progressive socialist implementation was pursued in accordance with the “non-capitalist development line”, but after the capitalist economic realm threatened the socialist economic realm, the rapid transition to socialism was promoted. As a result, the Second Congress of the Chosun Labor Party began to pursue a rapid socialist transition in line with the “transition from capitalism to socialism.“

미국법상 퍼블리시티권

권태상(Tae Sang Kwon) 한국비교사법학회 2016 비교사법 Vol.23 No.1

미국에서 퍼블리시티권은 1953년 판결에서 처음 인정되었고, 1977년 연방 대법원 판결에서도 인정되었다. 퍼블리시티권의 법적 성격은 일반적으로 재산권으로 인정되나, 이를 프라이버시권을 포기하는 권리 즉 자유권으로 파악하는 견해도 있다. 퍼블리시티권의 주체와 관련하여, 유명인은 물론 비유명인의 퍼블리시티권도 긍정되나, 법인 등 단체의 퍼블리시티권은 부정된다. 퍼블리시티권의 궁극적 보호대상은 사람의 동일성이 갖는 재산적 가치라고 할 수 있는데, 이는 이름, 초상 등 영상, 목소리 등 다양한 방법으로 나타날 수 있다. 퍼블리시티권은 발생 당시부터 양도가능한 권리로 여겨졌고, 이후에도 이에 대해서는 별로 다투어지지 않았다. 학설과 판례도 퍼블리시티권의 양도성을 긍정하며, 몇몇 주의 법률은 이를 명시적으로 규정한다. 퍼블리시티권 양수인은 그 권리를 다른 사람에게 주장할 수 있고, 퍼블리시티권의 양도는 양도인에 대해서도 구속력이 있다. 퍼블리시티권의 이용허락도 인정되는데, 이는 비배타적 이용허락과 배타적 이용허락으로 구분된다. 퍼블리시티권의 비배타적 이용 허락을 취득한 사람은 제3자를 상대로 자신의 권리를 주장하여 소를 제기할 수 없으나, 배타적 이용허락을 취득한 사람은 제3자를 상대로 소를 제기할 수 있다. 사망자의 동일성을 상업적으로 이용하는 것과 관련하여, 사망 후 퍼블리시티권을 인정할 수 있는지 문제된다. 사망 후 퍼블리시티권은, 퍼블리시티권이 재산권이라는 점. 이를 인정하는 것이 정책적으로 바람직하다는 점 등을 논거로 하여 인정된다. 사망 후 퍼블리시티권을 인정하기 위하여 이른바 ‘생전 이용’ 요건이 필요한지에 대하여, 학설의 다수는 비판적이며, 판례와 각 주의 법률도 이 요건을 채택하지 않았다. 사망 후 퍼블리시티권의 존속기간에 대하여, 학설의 다수는 저작권의 존속기간을 유추적용하는 것에 찬성하나, 각 주의 법률은 다양한 기간을 규정하고 있다. 퍼블리시티권 침해에 대한 구제수단으로 금지명령, 손해배상청구, 이익반환청구, 징벌적 손해배상 등이 인정된다. 금지명령은 전통적으로 손해배상이 부적당한 경우 이용할 수 있는 형평법상 구제수단인데, 퍼블리시티권 침해의 경우 그 손해액 입증의 어려움 등에 의해 적절한 구제수단으로 인정된다. 퍼블리시티권 침해로 인한 손해배상의 내용으로는 원고의 동일성의 이용이 갖는 공정한 시장 가치에 상당하는 손해, 장래의 공표가치 등에 대한 손해, 정정 광고 비용의 손해 등이 인정된다. 피해자의 동일성을 허락 없이 이용함으로 인해 가해자가 취득한 이익의 반환을 청구할 수도 있다고 인정되나, 실제 판결에서 이를 긍정한 경우는 많지 않다. 불법행위에 대하여 징벌적 손해배상을 인정하는 주의 경우, 퍼블리시티권 침해에 대하여 징벌적 손해배상도 청구할 수 있다. 다만, 이를 위해서는 해의 등 징벌적 손해배상의 요건이 충족되어야 한다. In the United States, the right of publicity was created in the 1953 Haelan case and recognized by U.S. Supreme Court in the 1997 Zacchini case. The Courts have held that the right of publicity is a property right. Everyone, celebrity and noncelebrity alike, has a right of publicity but nonhuman persons such as corporations have not this right. The right of publicity protect personal names, pictures, voice, persona in a role or characterization, persona identified by objects associated with a person. The Courts have uphold the assignability of the right of publicity. All of the assignor’s rights pass to the assignee. But in a license, title remains with the licensor. If the license is exclusive, the licensee can bring suit to prevent the trespass by third parties. Postmortem right of publicity is recognized on the grounds that the right of publicity is a property right and postmortem right of publicity is a wise public policy. The lifetime exploitation requirement was adopted by some courts but has been rejected by courts and statutory enactment. The majority of commentators favors borrowing of the postmortem duration of federal copyright law but the statutes of states define varying durations. When the right of publicity is infringed, there could be remedies such as injunctions, damages, recovery of profit and punitive damages. In measuring damages, plaintiff is entitled to recover for the market value of the use of his identity or persona. In some cases, plaintiff can also recover damages to future publicity value of identity or damages for false endorsement.

자신의 유체(遺體)에 관한 사망자의 인격권 -대법원 2008. 11. 20. 선고 2007다27670 전원합의체 판결-

권태상 ( Tae Sang Kwon ) 단국대학교 법학연구소 2009 법학논총 Vol.33 No.2

Personality Rights and Self-determination Rights of the Decedent should be the most important standard to determine the legal relations of the dead body. In many foreign countries, the rights of the decedent are of paramount importance to the legal relations of the dead body. In Korea, we should interpret law for the protection of Personality Rights of the Decedent and take this Rights into account in legislation or revision of law. Korean Supreme Court`s decision declared new legal principles to determine the worship supervisor, however the result can be similar to that of previous decisions. Korean Supreme Court`s decision denied legal binding power of the Decedent`s will, however it is unreasonable. The definition of Personality Rights is not clear, but the scope of Personality Rights is extending in the modern society. Personality Rights should be protected after death, and it is necessary to establish or amend laws to protect Personal Rights over the dead body.

북한의 농업협동화시기 국가-마을 관계 연구

권태상 ( Kwon Tae-sang ) 평화문제연구소 2017 통일문제연구 Vol.29 No.2

This article is about the process of the North Korean regime taking control of the village and their react after the Korean War. The “Korea Labor Party” has socially restructured the production, consumption and labor processes of the village through cooperation with agriculture and commerce. And the genocide victim’s family, family members of the people's armed forces, out-of-town migrants, and discharged soldiers. In addition, they tried to take control of villages by integrating the agricultural cooperatives that were created in each village and by strengthening the party 's control over Lee In response to these attempts, the villagers refused to join agricultural cooperatives or attempted to establish their own agricultural cooperatives in accordance with their class interests. In order to maintain the traditional order of the villages, they attempted to operate labor and towns based on traditional notions and tried to maintain their vested rights by excluding the new leadership of the village. These attempts did not appear in the form of aggressive political resistance, but in some areas they were called Baechun winds and were a significant threat. This resistance was gain control by people who lived in the same village. New Leaders of the village have applied new farming methods to agricultural cooperatives to increase agricultural output. In addition, nursery facilities and modern educational institutions were established to mobilize women's labor, ensuring women's advancement into society, and fostering a new generation that received modern education. Finally, in order to overcome traditional myths and notions, modern science was promoted to emphasize health hygiene and propagate scientific thinking to neutralize traditional village order. Through this process, the villages of North Korea were taken over by the state.