[2] The grounds for rejecting the illegality of the act of defamation under civil law and the standard for determining whether the content of a report constitutes “reasonable grounds to believe that the content of the report is true”

[3] In a case where newspaper company Gap, a member of the National Assembly, posted an article containing an article that Eul, a member of the National Assembly, made a statement about the political inclination in Daegu and North Korea by using the expression "Remuneration strings" at the inspection site, the case affirming the judgment below holding that Gap newspaper distorted Eul's remarks, stated false facts, and it is difficult to view that there was a considerable reason to believe that the publicly alleged contents are true

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In a case where the press media, such as a newspaper, carried a news article for a specific person, whether the news article constitutes an defamation of a specific person shall be determined based on the overall appearance of the news article, comprehensively taking into account the objective contents of the article, the ordinary meaning of the words used, the connection method of phrases, etc. under the premise that the general readers contact the news article, and the meaning of the relevant news article should also be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da37647, Jan. 24, 2003; 2008Da18925, Jul. 23, 2009).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and the records, the judgment of the court below which held that the defendant posted the article of this case to the effect that the plaintiff made a statement to the effect that he made a false statement by using the expression "salaryary" as the political inclination in the Daegu and North Korea area at the inspection site of the state administration was justifiable, and there was no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and violating the logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Even in a case where an act of damaging another person’s reputation is committed under the civil law, if it is deemed as a matter of public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, the act is not unlawful if it is proved to be true, and even if there is no proof, if there is considerable reason to believe the content of the report to be true, it shall be deemed that it is not unlawful. In such a case, as to defamation through the news report of the media, whether there is a considerable reason to believe the content of the report to be true shall be determined in light of the following: (a) whether the actor has conducted an adequate and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the report by taking into account all the various circumstances, such as the contents of the publicly alleged fact, the certainty and credibility of the evidence believed to be true; (b) the degree of damage to the victim caused by the news; and (c) whether the authenticity is supported by objective and reasonable materials or reasonable grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da10208, Jan. 19, 2001; 2004Da35199, May 12, 2).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant's publication of the article of this case has considerable reasons to believe that its timely contents are true, in full view of the following facts: (a) the article of this case contains contents that can give a large amount to residents in Daegu and North Korea; (b) the news reporters who belong to the defendant directly attend the inspection site of state administration; and (c) the publication newspaper of this case had time to sufficiently investigate the plaintiff's actual contents of the statement, intent of the statement, etc. compared to other lighting newspapers; and (d) the Yonhap News, etc. on the date of the inspection of state administration, which is the day before the publication of the article of this case, reports the plaintiff's statement as an Internet article of this case as it is without any addition to the contents and purport of the plaintiff's statement

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is acceptable that the court below ordered the defendant to publish a correction report of size and method as stated in its holding, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to a correction report, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)