On February 9, Mr. Huang, the owner of the Liuzhou City Water Side Community, received the verdict from the court. Mr. Huang was sued by the property company three months ago for speaking in the WeChat group of the owner of the community, accusing the property service company of "making false accounts", demanding that he compensate for the liability for reputation infringement. Today, the Liunan District People's Court has made a first-instance judgment on the case.
The property company sued the owner for infringement of the right to reputation
During the trial, the court ascertained that on January 1, 2008, the plaintiff property company signed the "Preliminary Property Service Entrustment Contract" with the developer of the water side community, stipulating that the plaintiff would provide property services for the water side community. The defendant, Mr. Huang, is a resident of the water side of the community.
According to the WeChat screenshot submitted by the property company to the court, Mr. Huang spoke in the "1 group of owners on the water side", "2 groups of owners on the water side" and "life group on the water side", saying: "Also make a fake account to announce to the owner..." "Making false accounts is also the first place", "Fooling the owners is also the first place", "... The owners of the community are the capital to make money for their property, the independent land where the property owner personally makes money illegally" and "the public income that belongs to all the owners is estimated to be illegally embezzled by the property owner every year". Regarding the chat content of "1 group of owners on the water side" and "2 groups of owners on the water side", the property company submitted the "Certificate of Digital Content Depository" issued by the notary public and the mobile phone screen recording video of the content of the two group chats.
The property company believes that Mr. Huang's malicious defamation of the company in the group of owners on the water side has constituted an infringement of the property company's right to reputation and should bear legal responsibility. The court requested the court to order Mr. Huang to publicly apologize to the property company in writing in the WeChat groups of the three owners and on the bulletin board of the water party community, eliminate the adverse effects, restore the plaintiff's reputation, and order Mr. Huang to pay the property company's lawyer's fee of 5,000 yuan.
Mr Wong applied to the Court for two witnesses to testify. Both witnesses said that they were members of the owner group of the community on the water side, and some owners in the group took pictures of the property service revenue and expenditure details announced by the property company in the community and sent them to the owner group, many owners had questions or objections to the content of the schedule, and the property company did not publish the detailed income and expenditure accounts.
The owner's counterclaim requires the plaintiff to disclose the income and expenditure
Mr. Huang argued that, first of all, he was the owner of the water side of the community and had the right to supervise the property services of the community; secondly, he did not maliciously slander or fabricate facts, slander and debase the plaintiff's reputation, did not maliciously slander and infringe on the plaintiff's right to reputation, and did not lead to a decrease in the plaintiff's social evaluation, and the evidence submitted by the property company was insufficient to prove that Mr. Huang had caused substantial damage to his right to reputation, and requested the court to reject all the claims of the property company.
At the trial, the plaintiff also stated that even if Mr. Huang exercised his right to supervise the property company as an owner, he should make derogatory remarks against the plaintiff in a proper manner, rather than directly among the owners without consulting the relevant accounts. Mr. Huang's speech in the group of owners caused the social evaluation of the property company by other owners in the group to be significantly reduced, resulting in a significant decrease in the proportion of property fees paid by the owners compared with previous years, so Mr. Huang's conduct constituted a reputation infringement against the plaintiff.
Mr. Huang also filed a counterclaim in this case, requesting the property company to publicize the income and expenditure of renting kindergartens, community public clubs, community public swimming pools, 21 overhead floors in the water side community to supermarkets, fitness clubs, business water vending machines occupying green space, telecommunications operators occupying land for installation and operation equipment rental, and public area parking fees in the water side community from January 2008 to November 2021. After review, the court held that the counterclaim claim and the claim in this case were not based on the same facts or there was a correlation between the facts, and that the counterclaim filed by the defendant could not offset or annex the claim of this lawsuit through the counterclaim, or make the claim of this lawsuit meaningless, so it ruled that the counterclaim claim was not accepted.
The first-instance judgment found that the owner did not constitute infringement
The video recording submitted by the property company on the chat content in the WeChat group was evidenced by the "Certificate of Digital Content Depository" issued by a notary public, and the court accepted it.
At trial, the court held that Mr. Huang claimed that it was indeed improper for the property company to make false accounts directly in the owner's WeChat group without verification, but whether this statement caused damage to the reputation of the property company should not be judged by the plaintiff's self-feeling, but should be based on whether the social objective evaluation of the property company by others has been reduced.
The property company claimed that Mr. Huang's statement caused other owners to reduce their social evaluation of the company and led to the owners' arrears in paying the property fees, but the plaintiff did not submit evidence to prove that its operation was affected by the above remarks; in the case of the final income and expenditure of the public property income and expenditure details, the owners of the community had doubts and objections to this matter and talked about the common sense of the person, and according to the complete WeChat group chat record submitted by the plaintiff, most of the topics discussed in the WeChat group were discussed. Even the theme of most of Mr. Huang's speeches revolves around the establishment of a community business committee, Mr. Huang's statement on the property making false accounts and the property owner embezzling the owner's income has not aroused too much attention and discussion among other members of the group, and it is difficult for the court to determine that other members of the group will cause a decline in social evaluation of the property company due to Mr. Huang's remarks, so the plaintiff's claim lacks factual basis, the reason is not established, and this court does not support it.
Therefore, the Liunan Court ruled in the first instance to reject all the litigation claims of the plaintiff property company. At the same time, the court of first instance also stressed that the WeChat group is not a private space exclusive to the individual, but a space with a certain degree of social openness, although Mr. Huang's behavior does not constitute an infringement of the right to reputation of the property company, but Mr. Huang should also be cautious when publishing information in the WeChat group in the future, and should not directly determine the matters that have not yet been verified and ascertained.