Attorney Seok Dong-hyun. [Yonhap]
Attorney Seok Dong-hyun. [Yonhap]

Seok Dong-hyun, the attorney who represented former President Yoon Suk Yeol during his impeachment trial, has lost his appeal in a 100 million won ($66,400) defamation lawsuit against independent lawmaker Jang Gyeong-tae, who had accused him of being the mastermind behind the riot at the Seoul Western District Court.

The Seoul High Court's Civil Division 13-1, presided over by Chief Judge Baek Gang-jin, ruled against Seok on June 19, upholding the first court's decision. The appeals court, like the first court in November last year, found that Jang's remarks constituted "raising allegations on a matter of public concern" and were therefore not unlawful.

Jang appeared on CBS Radio's "Kim Hyun-jung's News Show" in January last year and alleged that Seok was behind the riot at the Seoul Western District Court. The incident unfolded when supporters of Yoon — who had declared emergency martial law on Dec. 3 — stormed the courthouse after a judge issued an arrest warrant for the former president, smashing furniture and damaging facilities in a violent rampage.

At the time, Jang said Seok "entered a restaurant next to the Western District Court at 1 a.m." and that "there are tip-offs that some of those who were with him later broke into the court." He added that "if Seok incited the riot, the theory that he was behind it could well hold up," and that "there aren't many people other than someone like Seok who could have known which judge was handling the warrant."

After Jang's remarks became public, Seok filed a civil lawsuit in January last year, seeking 100 million won in damages and claiming that Jang had defamed him by stating false facts.

The first court, however, ruled against Seok in November last year.

The first court acknowledged that "Jang's statements were indeed false," noting that "there is no material to support the tip-off that any of those dining with Seok participated in the riot" and that "given that none of those present appear to have been investigated or punished, the facts Jang stated are false."

Nevertheless, the court dismissed the damages claim on the grounds that the statements were not unlawful. It found that the remarks were "political assertions related to matters of public concern and cannot be seen as malicious or as an attack that has markedly lost its reasonableness."

The court further noted that Seok, as head of the citizens' legal defense team for the president, was "a public figure who had entered the public arena" and therefore had "a relatively wider obligation to tolerate criticism compared to ordinary citizens."

Seok appealed, but the second court reached the same conclusion, ruling against him on the same grounds.

The appeals court described the riot as "an unprecedented incident in which illegal physical force was used against a court" and noted that "the specific circumstances of how it unfolded, the nature of the violence, and the extent of the damage were all subjects of enormous public interest at the time of Jang's remarks."

It added that "Seok and other close associates of former President Yoon faced allegations regarding their possible involvement in the Western District Court riot" and that "Seok himself was suspected of being behind the incident or was the target of political attacks."

The court concluded that "Jang's remarks, as political assertions on a matter of public concern, cannot be seen as malicious or as an attack that has markedly lost its validity without concrete supporting circumstances."

It also found that "there is ample room to view the remarks as rhetorically exaggerated expressions made in the course of raising allegations" and that they could be seen as "closer to the use of somewhat definitive language in the process of emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation into the unprecedented incident of the Western District Court riot."

The ruling was finalized July 4, after Seok chose not to appeal the second court's decision.

Seok had also filed a criminal complaint against Jang in January last year on charges of defamation, but police declined to refer the case for prosecution.

In August last year, police determined that "the allegations amounted to no more than an expression of opinion and cannot be definitively characterized as stating specific facts," adding that while Jang's remarks "may have included somewhat definitive and exaggerated expressions in the course of raising the theory," there was "no clear evidence of malicious intent to defame."


notstrong@heraldcorp.com