Trial court:Intermediate People's Court of Dalian City, Liaoning Province

Case No:(2023) Liao 02 min zong no 1419

Cause of action:right of reputation dispute

Date of Referee:February 20, 2023

Intermediate People's Court of Dalian City, Liaoning Province

civil judgment

(2023) Liao 02 min zong no 1419

Appellant (Defendant in the Original Instance): HNA, Baoxing Community, Maqiaozi StreetThe first owners' committee of YOHO Bay Community is located at No. 141, HNA YOHO Bay Community, 6th Street, Northeast, Dalian Economic and Technological Development Zone.

Director of the owners' committee:Jiang a sea.

Authorized agent ad litem: Zhang Chenglin, lawyer of Liaoning Tianying Law Firm.

Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial):often a certain, female,Born on October 10, 1968, Han, lives in Dalian Economic and Technological Development Zone.

Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial):Wu Mou Wen, female,Born on November 17, 1961, Han, lives in Dalian Economic and Technological Development Zone.

Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial):Xu a, female,Born on January 2, 1964, Han, lives in Dalian Economic and Technological Development Zone.

Three appellee jointly entrusted litigation agent: Lin Xuemei, Liaoning Bihai Law Firm lawyer.

Three appellee jointly entrusted litigation agent: Zhang Baofeng, Liaoning Bihai Law Firm lawyer.

Appellant Maqiaozi Street Baoxing Community HNAThe First Owners Committee of YOHO Bay Community (hereinafter referred to as Maqiao Sub-industry Committee) is due to the relationship with the appelleeoften a certain,Wu Mou Wen,Xu aIn the case of reputation dispute, the People's Court of Dalian Economic and Technological Development Zone (2022) Liao 0291 civil judgment No. 5166 at the beginning of the Republic of China appealed to this court. After filing the case on February 8, 2023, the court formed a collegial panel to hear the case according to law. The case has now been closed.

Maqiao Sub-industry Committee Appeal Request: Revocation (2022) Liao 0291 civil judgment No. 5166 at the beginning of the Republic of China, and changed the judgment to reject all the claims of the three appellees. Facts and reasons: the original judgment found that the facts were wrong. 1. The original judgment found that the appellant had registered and used the public number of "The First Owners Committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community" and had used the public number of "The First Owners Committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community" to issue the "Letter to All Owners of HNA YOHO Bay Community" to the owners. This section is found to be wrong and directly contradicts the evidence provided by the appellee in the first instance. The printed page on the public number provided by the appellee shows the basic information of the public number of "the first owners' committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community": micro signal: ××× a2 account subject: individual. This evidence was presented by the appellant in the first instance, and the appellant's agent made a statement in court. This is sufficient to prove that the public number was not set up by the appellant. Such clear evidence is far more powerful than the telephone consultation with Shenzhen Tencent Company by the trial judge. Although the public number was canceled, it left traces. This is the evidence. Whoever registers the public number of the "First Owners Committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community" and who writes or disseminates infringing articles will bear the tort liability. This is as simple as that. The original judgment determined that the appellant was the registrar and user of the public number of the "First Owners Committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community". According to Gao Mou, executive secretary of the industry committee hired by the appellant, he forwarded an important announcement (photo) on the selection and employment of properties in the community on May 1, 2021, and forwarded the article "Announcement on the Process of Bidding and Employment of Property Companies" linked to the public number on June 2, 2021. On June 18, 2021, the article "Letter to All Owners of HNA YOHO Bay Community" linked to the public number was forwarded. The two articles forwarded by Executive Secretary Gao Mou could not be opened. The content of the article could not be verified to be related to the appellant. Obviously, the original judgment was determined by association through the name of the public number and the title of the article. Moreover, although Gao mou is the executive secretary hired by the industry committee, he confirmed that the public number was registered and used by the appellant when he forwarded the public number article, which is obviously not logically valid. Who is the registrant of the public number of "the first owners' committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community"? No matter who it is, the public number is set up by individuals, and it is definitely not the first owners' committee of HNA YOHO Community, the appellant. Who advocates, who gives evidence, the appellee's evidence, has been able to prove that the public number is set up by individuals, not units. 2, the determination of the content of the infringement of facts belongs to the determination of facts error. The original judgment found that the appellee provided a screenshot of the article showing that the article involved the contradiction between the three plaintibles and the defendant. As for the screen capture of the article provided by the appellee in the original trial, the appellee expressed his disapproval in the trial. As the appellee accused the infringement of public number article, he must show the opened online infringement article and let the parties check the source of the so-called screen capture evidence. The appellee's agent questioned in court whether the screen was cut when the public number article was opened. From beginning to end, the appellee did not show the public number article involved in the Internet, it is not even clear where the appellee cut it off. Whether the so-called screenshot article is the public number article accused by the appellee, "Letter to All Owners of HNA YOHO Bay Community", the appellee did not provide evidence to prove it. When the witness of the original trial appeared in court, the appellee showed the witness a printout of the so-called screenshot of the article, and shook it to the witness. The witness immediately said "yes", which was extremely imprecise. Due to the existence of virtual space in online articles, evidence must be saved by opening the status recording screen online, or by saving the web page, or by other ways of evidence preservation, in order to save the evidence for litigation. The original court has canceled the public number involved in the case, the so-called infringing articles involved in the case cannot be reproduced through the internet, and the appellee has no relevant legally preserved evidence. according to the so-called screenshots of the articles, it is a factual error to determine the existence of infringing articles and contents. To sum up, the appellant believed that the original trial found that the facts were wrong. The original trial found that the appellant registered the public number and used the public number to publish the so-called infringing articles were not established. The third appellee claimed that the appellant violated his right of reputation was not established. He requested the court of second instance to cancel the original judgment according to law and to change the judgment to reject all the appellee's claims. The WeChat public number information involved in the case has been able to identify the person who set up the WeChat public number. In the third court hearing, the WeChat speaker to be proved appeared in the group, and the WeChat public number information appeared under the operation of the appellee's agent. This is the registration information, which can prove that the owner is the person who set up the WeChat public number. The original trial found out that the facts were wrong.

often a certain,Wu Mou Wen,Xu aArgued that the appellant's request for appeal was not granted. The public number involved in 1. case is the public number used by the owners' committee for office purposes. The evidence is sufficient and the owners of the residential area all know that it has been used by the owners' committee."HNA YOHO Bay Community First Industry Committee" Public Number Releases Work Information. The materials sealed by the industry committee state that the selection process of the property service company will be announced in the public number. many members of the industry committee will publicize the public number in each owner group of the community, forward the contents of the public number many times, and reply to the appellee on wechat.often a certainAfter investigation, the industry committee will answer the question on the public number. The above personnel include Gao mou, executive secretary of the industry committee, Hua mouyan and Zhang mou, members of the industry committee. these members of the industry committee all think that this is the public number of the industry committee, while the industry committee shirks the personal behavior of the members of the industry committee and has nothing to do with the industry committee. this is not in line with the usual cognition, nor is it logical and customs. The above is sufficient to prove that the appellant has a public number, and his statement in the first instance trial that there is no public number and no WeChat contact group is inconsistent with the facts and contradicts the content of the appellant's evidence. It is the appellant's prevarication that he thinks that the public number has been canceled and cannot be restored and can evade responsibility. The appellant thinks that the public number is applied for by individuals and cannot be the public number of the industry committee. This is also unreasonable. The industry committee was originally composed of multiple members. In order to facilitate operation and application, the public number of the industry committee is applied and managed by individuals and then used for publicity of the work of the industry committee. In this case, the public number is the public number of the industry committee. 2. the screenshot of the webpage provided by the appellee, it can be seen that it is a screenshot of the public number webpage link, with the titleAccording to the display rules and habits of the public number, the author's position under the title shows "HNA YOHO Bay Industry Committee" and the name of the public number shows "HNA YOHO Bay Community First Industry Committee". The date of opening time is June 19, 2021, and the ending is "HNA YOHO Bay Community First Owners Committee, June 18, 2021", all of these directly prove the content of the information released by the public number. Although there is no direct process of opening the link to display the content, the comprehensive evidence of the first instance confirms that the content of the "Letter to All Owners of HNA YOHO Bay Community" submitted by the appellee is the content of the public number "Letter to All Owners of HNA YOHO Bay Community" of the Industry Committee, which is highly predictable. The first instance judgment determines that the appellant constitutes a correct reputation infringement. 3. the WeChat chat record of the owner group of Building 6 and the screenshot information of the cancellation of the public number, which the appellee gave evidence in the trial of the first instance, were displayed in the trial of the original trial. The owner of the original mobile phone wasoften a certainwith one of the appellees in this case,often a certainYesOne of the members of the No. 6 owner group, of which the WeChat name is Hua Zi 6-1-3103, also sent a public number business card. The public number name is HNA YOHO Bay Owners Committee. Click on the public number picture to show the canceled page. There is a specific information. After click, the specific information change about the public number will be displayed. This screenshot is the evidence material submitted in Supplementary Evidence 3, it is the evidence that the appellant's public number can see the subject of the micro-signal account.

often a certain,Wu Mou Wen,Xu aRequest to the court of first instance:1. The defendant immediately stopped the infringement of the plaintiff's reputation and restored the plaintiff's reputation; 2. The defendant publicly apologized to the plaintiff in the owner's WeChat group and public number, and issued an apology notice on the bulletin board of HNA YOHO Bay Community for 7 days. 3. Request the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for mental damage compensation of 2000 yuan and economic losses (lawyer's fees) of 6000 yuan; 4. The defendant shall bear all the litigation costs of this case.

The court of first instance found out that the third plaintiff was the owner of HNA YOHO Bay Community. The outsider Gao is the executive secretary of the defendant's industry committee.On May 1, 2021, Gao issued an "Important Announcement" sealed by the defendant in the owner group of Hanghai Building 1, informing the owner that the detailed process of selecting and hiring property enterprises will be released through the WeChat public number of the industry committee. On June 2, 2021, Gao mou forwarded the "announcement on the process of selecting property companies through bidding" on wechat group, the owner of building 1, which was issued by the public number of "the first industry Committee of hainan YOHO bay community. On June 18, 2021, the public number of the "First Industry Committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community" released the "Letter to All Owners of HNA YOHO Bay Community". The screenshot of the article provided by the plaintiff showed that the content of the article involved the contradiction between the three plaintiffs and the defendant, which recorded "one of the three old ladiesWu Mou Wen, in the community fountain to woo unsuspecting owners, rumors,The XX Industry Committee used the maintenance fund to deceive the public and have bad intentions ","Xu aEverywhere, claiming to be instructed by the administrative department of the government, wantonly undermining the unity of the owners and the stability of the community, spread everywhere.XX”，“often a certain, to a group spread forwardingWu Mou WenandXu avarious fabrications,XX, slander and slander, destroy the harmonious living atmosphere of HNA owners, help Zhou for evil ". Witness Zhou appeared in court to confirm that he had checked the article in the public number, and the content of the article was consistent with the screenshot provided by the three original reports. The article was forwarded by other owners to other owners in the residential area involved in the case, which aroused the indignation of many owners in the WeChat group and made verbal attacks on the three original complaints. The contents of the verbal attacks included "this old lady was splashed by civil dung", "as she gets older, she has to accumulate some virtue", "if the old man does not accumulate virtue, her children and grandchildren will suffer", "It's a lot of suffering if I accidentally break my leg by jumping up and down every day", "Can I be punished by God" and so on.

The public number of the "First Industry Committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community" was registered on March 19, 2021 and canceled on November 24 of the same year. With respect to the registration information and published article records of the public number of the "First Industry Committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community", the court of first instance wrote to Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. The company replied that it was unable to inquire about the registration information because the system retention period from the cancellation time to the inquiry point had exceeded six months.

The court of first instance held that the civil subject enjoys the right of reputation. No organization or individual may insult,XX and other ways to infringe upon the reputation of others. Reputation is the social evaluation of the moral character, prestige, talent, credit and so on of the civil subject.

1. the question of whether the defendant infringed upon the right of reputation of the three plaintiaries. AlthoughThe public number of the "First Industry Committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community" has been canceled and cannot be viewed. The defendant also argued that the public number has not been registered and relevant articles have been published. However, Gao Mou is the executive secretary of the defendant's industry committee, and the information released on behalf of the defendant in the owner group can prove that the defendant did inform the owner of the registration of WeChat public number, the public number of the "First Industry Committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community" was used to issue a notice to the owners on the selection of a property management company. Therefore, the court of first instance found that the defendant had registered and used the public number of the "First Industry Committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community" and issued the fact of "Notice to All Owners of HNA YOHO Bay Community" through the public number. Although the defendant did not approve the authenticity of the screenshot of the article "Letter to All Owners of HNA YOHO Bay Community" provided by the three plaintiffs, the testimony of witnesses and the chat content of the owners group confirmed that the article was real, because the content of the article involves insulting remarks such as "deceiving the public and having bad intentions", "wanton sabotage and spreading XX", "helping Zhou to be evil" and private information such as the names of the three plaintiffs, which belittle the personality of the three plaintiffs, the court of first instance held that the defendant had the malice to damage the reputation of the three plaintiffs subjectively and objectively carried out the act of infringing upon the reputation right of others, it inevitably affected the fair evaluation of the three plaintiffs by others, resulting in many owners in the owner's WeChat group making condemning and insulting evaluations of the three plaintiffs. The defendant's infringement facts exist and should bear civil liability for infringement. However, because the defendant has canceled the public number and the infringing article no longer exists, the infringement has stopped, and the court of first instance does not need to order the defendant to stop the infringement.

2. on the issue of rehabilitation and apology. According to the law, if a citizen's right of name, portrait, reputation or honor is infringed upon, he has the right to demand that the infringement be stopped, his reputation be restored, the influence be eliminated, an apology be made, and compensation for losses may be demanded. Because the defendant has canceled the public number, the defendant cannot apologize in the public number. In view of the fact that the scope of the defendant's influence on the reputation right of the three plaintiffs is limited to the residential area involved in the case, and considering the actual situation of the case, the court of first instance held that the defendant should publicly apologize to the three plaintiffs for three days in the form of words in the WeChat owners group and the bulletin board of the residential area, so as to restore the reputation of the plaintiff. The court of first instance did not support the three original requests for an apology for seven days.

3. on Plaintiffs' Claims for Economic Loss6000 yuan (attorney's fees) and mental damage solatium (2000 yuan). The law provides that "reasonable expenses paid by the infringed person to stop the infringement may be deemed to be property damage under Article 182 of the Civil Code. Reasonable expenses include the reasonable expenses of the infringer or the entrusted agent to investigate and obtain evidence of the infringement. The people's court may, according to the request of the parties and the specific circumstances of the case, calculate the lawyer's fees in accordance with the provisions of the relevant state departments within the scope of compensation. If it is difficult to determine the property losses caused by the infringement of the infringer's personal rights and interests and the benefits obtained by the infringer as a result, the people's court may determine the amount of compensation within the range of less than 500000 yuan according to the specific circumstances of the case". As for the lawyer's fee of 6000 yuan for the economic loss claimed by the plaintiff, because the entrustment contract provided by the plaintiff was recorded as 6000 yuan, but the actual invoice issued was 5000 yuan, referring to the lawyer's fee method, the court of first instance supported the lawyer's fee of 5000 yuan, and the excess was not supported. Regarding the compensation for mental damage claimed by the three plaintiffs, considering the adverse impact of the defendant's articles on the three plaintiffs, the court of first instance decided to set it at 1000 yuan, and the court of first instance did not support the excess.

Court of First Instance Judgment: 1. Defendant Ma Qiaozi Street Baoxing Community HNAThe first session of the owners' committee of YOHO Bay Community shall, within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment, publicly report to the plaintiff in the form of words in the owner's WeChat group and the bulletin board of the community.often a certain,Wu Mou Wen,Xu aApologize and restore reputation for the three plaintiffs; 2. Defendant Ma Qiaozi Street Baoxing Community HNAThe First Owners Committee of YOHO Bay Community shall compensate the plaintiff within ten days from the effective date of the judgment.often a certain,Wu Mou Wen,Xu aLawyers' fees5000 yuan; The 3. defendant, the first owners' committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community, Baoxing Community, Maqiaozi Street, will compensate the plaintiff within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment.often a certain,Wu Mou Wen,Xu aSolatia for mental damage1000 yuan; 4. rejected the plaintiffoften a certain,Wu Mou Wen,Xu aother claims. If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in the judgment, the interest on the debt during the period of delay shall be doubled in accordance with the provisions of Article 260 of the the People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law. Case acceptance fee300 yuan, by the three plaintiaries to bear 100 yuan, by the defendant to bear 200 yuan.

The Court confirmed the facts ascertained in the judgment of first instance.

The Court believes that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the appellant should bear tort liability for the infringement involved in the case. The appellant recognized Gao as the appellant's executive secretary. Gao's group of owners in the residential area in the case issued an "Important Announcement" stamped by the appellant, and informed the owners that the specific process would be released through the WeChat public number of the industry committee. After Gao mou issued a relevant announcement in the owner group, the announcement was also issued by the public number of the industry committee. It can be seen from this that Gao's above-mentioned behavior is the official behavior on behalf of the appellant, and the public number involved in the case is also to provide services for the appellant to release information. The appellant claims that the public number involved in the case has nothing to do with it. In the second instance trial, the appellant claimed that the public number involved in the case was registered and used by Hua Mou Yan, which was the personal act of Hua Mou Yan and had nothing to do with the appellant. However, the registration form submitted by the appellant in the first instance by the owners committee of maqiaozi street in Dalian jinpu new district shows that Hua mouyan is the deputy director of the appellant. therefore, the court has reason to believe that Hua mouyan, as the appellant's staff member, is involved in the registration case involving the public number, and issues the public number business card among the owners group, which is also the official act of representing the appellant. To sum up, the public number involved in the case was registered by the deputy director of the appellant and issued a business card among the owners. Gao mou, the appellant's executive secretary, used the public number to issue news and announcements many times. therefore, the first-instance judgment found that the public number involved in the case was registered by the appellant and actually used, which was not improper and was maintained by the second-instance court. In this public number, the "Report to HNA" was published.All owners' letters of YOHO Bay Community, in which insulting remarks were made to the appellee, resulted in the consequences of abusive and condemnatory evaluation of the appellee by some owners in the owners' group. Therefore, the first-instance judgment found that there was a causal relationship in this case and ruled that it was not improper for the appellee to bear tort liability, which was upheld by the second instance of the court.

To sum up, Maqiaozi Street Baoxing Community HNAThe appeal request of the first owners' committee of YOHO Bay Community cannot be established and should be rejected; the first-instance judgment found that the facts are clear and the applicable law is correct and should be maintained. In accordance with the provisions of Article 177, Paragraph 1, Item (I) of the the People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law, the judgment is as follows:

The appeal was rejected and the original sentence was upheld.

Second instance case acceptance fee300 yuan (the first owners' committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community, Baoxing Community, Maqiaozi Street, the appellant has paid in advance) shall be borne by the first owners' committee of HNA YOHO Bay Community, Baoxing Community, Maqiaozi Street, the appellant.

This judgment is final.

Presiding Judge Zhang Pingping

Judge Zhao Shuyun

Judge Yuan Nan Nan

February 20, 2003

Clerk Shao Jiang