Mympo-si

2. ○○○

Mympo-si

2. The daily report of ○○;

Representative Director Ma○○

Defendants’ Address Seoul

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Gu Young-hwan

2. The remaining claims against the Defendants by the designated parties described in this ○○○○ and paragraph (1) of the same Article and the claims against the Defendants by the Plaintiffs (designated parties) Kim○○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○, Ga○, Ga○, Ga○○, Ga○, Ga○, ○○, ○, ○○, Ga○, Ma○, Ma○, Ga○, Ga○, Ga○, and Park○, are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/5 of the part arising between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendants is borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) Lee ○, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively. The part arising between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) Kim ○ and the Defendants is borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) Kim ○ and Kim ○.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

5,000,000 won shall be paid.

A. The status of the party (1) Defendant Park Jong-○, a reporter, who belongs to Defendant 2’s daily newspaper (hereinafter “Defendant 2’s daily newspaper”), drafted an article listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant article”). (2) The Plaintiffs and the appointed parties were those who are serving in military as a naval legal officer, who are now serving in military service. The Plaintiff 2, the designated parties, ○○○, Kim Il-○, ○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○, ○, ○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○, ○, ○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○○, ○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and ○○, ○○.

B. On November 6, 2009, Defendant 1 published the instant article on the two pages of the “○○ Daily News” and its website column.

(2) The main contents of the article of this case are as follows. (A) The Special Investigation Committee of the Ministry of National Defense (Ministry of National Defense) ascertains the circumstances that the military legal officer of the Navy, who is suspected of being unable to systematically engage in the investigation of a special group, and is punished for fact-finding operations. If the investigation of this part is true, it seems that the military judicial officer of the Navy, as well as the military officer, have been suffering from the Dome. (b) The Special Investigation Committee, along with the suspicion that AJ made a voice laundry during a long period of time with the military judicial officer of the Navy, and it is anticipated that the special Investigation Committee would be punished for fact-finding operations. The special investigation officer of the Navy, "the amount of money laundering exceeds the amount of money laundering," and "the officer of the Navy must comply with the law," and "the officer of the Navy, as a legal officer of the Navy, has to comply with the law."

C. In addition, this interested parties should be noted that the reason why the investigation should be obstructed due to systematic external pressure, such as calling or calling for the legal officers of the Navy in the investigation of the Ministry of National Defense's prosecutor's office, "I would like to call for the persons related to the prosecution team," and "I would like to call for the reasons why the investigation could be obstructed by systematic external pressure."

C. Other newspaper companies, such as the news report, the first day, the Hague economy, etc. of another newspaper, cited and reported the instant article.

D. Unlike the contents of the instant article, there was no objective evidence as to the fact that the marine legal officer of the Navy interfered with the sound washing of money or systematic investigation, and there was no prosecution or disciplinary action against any of the marine legal officers of the Navy.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The article of this case is a false statement that the marine judicial officers of the Ministry of National Defense interfered with the investigation of the Special Investigation Committee of the Ministry of National Defense in a systematic manner, and that the article of this case has damaged the honor of all the marine judicial officers of the Ministry of National Defense. Accordingly, the defendants are obliged to pay 5,00,000 won as consolation money to the plaintiff and the designated officers of each of the marine judicial officers of the Ministry of National Defense.

B. Summary of the defendants' assertion

The article of this case cannot be deemed to have impaired the honor of each of the marine judicial officers, and even if the honor of the plaintiffs and the designated parties was damaged as the article of this case, it was true or there was a considerable reason to believe that the article of this case was true, and this is based on the purpose of the public interest, so the illegality is dismissed.

3. Determination

A. The establishment of defamation liability (1) establishment of defamation of a group (a) is difficult to interpret that such a broadcast is against a specific person who belongs to the group, and as a result, the degree of criticism does not reach the degree of impact on the social assessment of the members because the degree of criticism has been dilution when it comes to an individual member, it does not constitute defamation of each member. However, in exceptional cases, if it is deemed that the number of members is less than the number of members to the extent that it is considered to be broadcasting for each member or that it is referred to as an individual member in the group in light of the surrounding circumstances at the time of broadcasting, etc., it shall be deemed that the individual member in the group is specified as the victim. The specific criteria include the size of the group, characteristics of the group, and the status of the victim within the group (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da63558, Sept. 2, 200).

In addition, defamation by news reports requires a statement of specific facts likely to undermine the victim's social evaluation. Here, even in cases where a statement of facts is expressed directly or indirectly, in light of the overall purport of the expression, and even in cases where it is made by indirect or round-up methods, there is a possibility that certain facts may be infringed upon by a specific person's social value or evaluation. Whether a newspaper's news constitutes tort due to damage to another person's reputation is determined based on the overall appearance of the news articles in relation to the overall purport of the news articles under the premise that the general readers have an ordinary method of dealing with the news, under the premise of the overall purport of the news articles, the objective contents of the article, used words, connection methods of phrases, etc. It should be determined based on the overall appearance of the news articles, and the meaning of the news articles in question should be considered together in the flow of the society where the news report is based on the background of the article in question. In particular, if the news report concerns facts that are being investigated by an investigative agency or an auditor, it is reasonable for the public to have considerable tendency to ascertain the news report as well as per se and its news report.

(B) Comprehensively considering the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments, namely, ① the article of this case was published on the second page of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s daily newspaper, and its title was as follows; ② the contents of the article are harshing that “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.” The content of the article of this case.

(B) However, from around 2003 to around 2005, there was a suspicion of the supply cost, which became the contents of the instant article, the Plaintiff Kim Jong-○ and the remaining designated parties who did not work in the mountain area of the mountain area of the mountain area, cannot be deemed to be the victim of the instant article. Accordingly, (a) according to the following, the Plaintiff Kim○-○, the designated parties, Kim○-○, Kim○, the head of Kim○, the head of ○○, the high-○○, the ○○○, the ○○○○, the Park○-○, the old ○○, the old ○○, the G○○○, the Go○○, the Gangwon○, the Gangwon○, Kim○, the Kim○-○, the Kim○, the ○○, the Kim○-○, the ○○, the ○○, and the ○○○, and the ○○○○, without any further need for examination.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the content of the instant article is true or that there was a considerable reason to believe that the instant article was true in preparing the instant article ( there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Defendants confirmed the news report of the instant article or the content thereof).

(b) Scope of damages;

The defendants are responsible for compensating the plaintiff ○○○, a selected person, Kim Il-○, a new ○○, a rooftop, an ○○○○, a ○○○○, and an o○○○, a chief executive officer, a senior ○○, an Park○, an Park○, an Park○, a new ○○, an Kim Il-○, an Kim Il-○, an article of this case; ○○○○, an article of this case; ○○○○, an article of this case; ○○○, a chief executive officer, a senior ○○, a senior ○○, a senior ○○, a senior ○○, a senior ○○, and an article of this case; ○○○○, a senior ○, a senior ○○, a senior ○, a senior ○○, a senior ○○, a senior ○○○, a senior ○○, a senior ○○, a senior ○○, a senior ○○, a ○○, and an article of this case.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, each of the Defendants is obligated to pay KRW 3,00,00,000 for each of the instant ○○○○, a selected person Kim ○○, a new ○○, an office, an office, an office, an office, an office, an office, an office, an office, an office, an office, an office, an gambling, an office, an office, an office, and an office, an office, an office, and an office, an office, and an office, an office, and an office, an office, and an office, an office, and an office, an office, and an office, an office, and an office, an office, and an office, an office, and an office, and an office, shall pay KRW 3,00,00.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff ○○○, a selected person Kim ○, a new ○○, a ○○, a house○, an ○○○, an ○○, and an in-depth○○, a pregnant ○○, abs○, an o○, an gambling○, an gambling○, an Ga○○, a new ○○, and an Kim○○, an all of the claims filed against the defendants by the plaintiff ○○○, a selected person, an Kim○, and the head of an office on the ground that the claims against the defendants are reasonable only within the scope of the recognition as above. Since each of the remaining claims is without good cause, the claims against the defendants by the plaintiff ○○○, a selected person, an Kim○, an Kim○, an ○○, an Kim○, an ○○, an Kim○, an Kim○, an ○○○, an ○○○, and an ○○○○, an ○○○, and an ○○○○, an ○○○, and an ○○○.

Judges Lee Sung-sung

Judges Kim Jong-hee