Man left scathing review of licensed real estate agency

Court rules insulting language not protected as free expression, orders 300,000 won in damages

This image is for illustrative purposes only and is not directly related to the article. [Getty Images Bank]
This image is for illustrative purposes only and is not directly related to the article. [Getty Images Bank]

"The most thuggish place around… Feel free to go if you want to get played lol"

 

— Review left by B on the office visit page of licensed real estate agent A

-B씨가 공인중개사 A씨의 사무소 방문후기에 남긴 글-

A court has ruled that a man who left the above review on a licensed real estate agency's page — claiming he had been quoted a commission rate above the legal limit — must pay damages. The court said the language could not be considered protected free expression and ordered him to pay 300,000 won ($194) to the agent for the insulting remarks.

According to legal sources, the 21st Civil Division (Presiding Judge Park Ju-yeon) of Suwon District Court ruled May 8 in favor of agent A in a second-instance lawsuit A had filed against B seeking 13 million won ($8,424) in damages. A had lost at the first instance, but the appeals court reversed that ruling, finding that B owed 300,000 won.

B purchased an apartment in Hwaseong, Gyeonggi Province, in around July 2023 and visited the real estate agency operated by A. He subsequently left a review describing the office as "the most thuggish place," saying he had been quoted a brokerage commission exceeding the legally permitted rate when he visited to inquire about buying the apartment.

After discovering the review, A filed a damages lawsuit against B seeking 13 million won.

During the trial, B denied liability. His side argued that the review was posted solely to share information with other consumers and amounted to a subjective opinion and critical expression. B further contended that any insulting language used was only incidental and did not violate accepted social norms.

The Osan branch of Suwon District Court, which handled the first instance, ruled in B's favor in September 2025, but the appeals court reached a different conclusion.

The second-instance court began by noting that social reputation and credibility are critically important to a real estate brokerage, whose primary business depends on public trust.

It then found that the word "thug" — a vulgar term for someone of base character who habitually engages in wrongdoing — went beyond mere critical opinion and constituted an insulting and contemptuous personal attack that damaged A's social standing.

The court said it was difficult to determine precisely what A had told B at the time based on the evidence submitted. It added that even if B's account were accepted, there was no need to use the word "thug," nor was such an expression worth protecting as free speech.

It also said B's intended message was not clearly conveyed by the review alone, and that the conduct could not be recognized as permissible under accepted social norms.

The court acknowledged that the review might not constitute criminal insult under the Penal Code, but said civil liability for an unlawful act could be recognized on broader grounds, and held that B was liable for damages.

However, the damages were capped at 300,000 won, far below the 13 million won A had sought.

The court noted that the review had been posted for more than a year and a half and that A had clearly suffered emotional distress upon discovering it, but said the actual impact on A's reputation appeared limited given the average user's ability to gather and assess information independently.

The court added that regardless of whether B's claims were objectively true or based on a misunderstanding, B had asserted his own reasons for posting the review, and there was no evidence of malicious intent toward A.

It went on to say it also took into account that B deleted the review shortly after being served with the complaint.


notstrong@heraldcorp.com