[1] Where an expressive act expressing an opinion constitutes defamation against another person

[2] The criteria for determining whether an article of the press, such as a newspaper, has caused damage to another person's reputation, thereby constituting a tort, and in particular, matters to be considered in the case of a rumor cartoon or current events

[3] The contents and meaning of the grounds for exclusion of illegality in another person's defamation caused by an expressive act, and the standard for determining whether a person who committed an act of expression has "reasonable grounds to believe that the reported content is true"

[4] The difference in the criteria for setting limits between freedom of press and publication, and protection of honor, depending on whether the contents of expression are private (private) or public (public) relations, and the criteria for setting limits in cases where the relevant expression is against another press organization

[5] The case holding that in a case where Eul newspaper company reported a critical article, reputation, etc. with respect to a pro-Japanese or mass damage, etc. in the past, it cannot be deemed unlawful as a whole on the ground that the main contents are consistent with the truth or are not consistent with substantial grounds to believe that the material contents are true, even if some of the contents are not correct or excessively stimulated, etc.

[1] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 309 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 309 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 10, 21 (1) and (4) of the Constitution, Article 310 of the Criminal Act / [4] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 10, 21 (1) and (4) of the Constitution, Article 310 of the Criminal Act / [5] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 10, 21 (1) and (4) of the Constitution, Article 310 of the Criminal Act

[1] [2] [4] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37524, 37531 decided Jan. 22, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 522) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da31356 decided Feb. 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 458) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da6203 decided Jul. 28, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1925) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da50213 decided May 10, 202 (Gong2002Ha, 1336) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2008Da36364 decided Jan. 19, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da320784 decided Oct. 36, 2007

East Asia Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorneys Cho Yong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Hansan Newspapers Co., Ltd. and 7 others (Law Firm Shin, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na85035 delivered on November 29, 2005

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Defamation against others under the civil law may be conducted by means of expressing facts and expressing opinions. In the case of pure opinions or commentaries that are not premised on a statement of facts, liability for damages arising from defamation is not established, while an expression of opinion is not directly or indirectly expressed as a premise, if an expression of opinion indicates facts in light of the overall purport of the expression, or if it is likely to infringe on the social value or evaluation of a specific person, it shall be defamation. Whether an article of the press, such as a newspaper, harms another person’s reputation or not shall be determined based on the overall appearance of the article, under the premise of the ordinary method of expressing the article, in relation to the overall purport of the article, by comprehensively taking into account the general method of expressing the article, 209, 209, 309, 209, 209, 209, 309, 205, 209, 209, 309, 200, 209, 209, 209.

However, even if a certain expression impairs another person’s reputation, if the expression is “for the public interest” and its contents are “for the purpose of the public interest,” it would be deemed unlawful if the expression is “real fact” or an actor “for the purpose of the public interest.” Here, “the purpose of the expression is solely for the public interest” means the expression pertaining to the public interest from an objective point of view, and as such, the perpetrator expresses the fact for the purpose of the public interest. If the principal objective or motive of the actor is for the public interest, it is unnecessary even if there are other private interest purposes or motives incidental thereto. In addition, the phrase “real fact” means a fact that conforms to objective facts in light of the overall purport of the expression, even if there is a little difference from the truth or somewhat exaggerated expression. In addition, whether there is considerable reason to believe that the content of the report is true or true, and whether there is sufficient evidence to verify the victim’s credibility and credibility, 200, 2005, and 201, 205, 2005, etc.

On the other hand, in setting the limit between freedom of press and protection of reputation, the contents expressed are different depending on whether they are private (private) relations or public relations relations. In particular, if the contents expressed are related to a media company, depending on whether the victim is a public figure or private existence, whether the expression concerns public interests or pure private matters, the restriction on the freedom of press should be mitigated (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da37524, 37531, Jan. 22, 2002; 2004Da3519, May 12, 2006; 2004Da35199, May 2, 2006). In particular, if the expression is related to a media company, the scope of freedom of press should be wide as the scope of freedom of expression is expressed against others (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da37524, May 22, 2006; 200Da35199, etc.). It should not be easily distorted or distorted by another media.

Based on the selected evidence, the lower court found the facts as indicated in its reasoning. ① The Defendant’s first news report of this case contains no reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the report were true or unrecognizable in light of the following facts: (a) although the Plaintiff’s news report of this case did not err by misapprehending the construction plan of the Seoul Metropolitan Government and refusing to relocate the 3rd square; and (b) the content of the report’s news report of this case, including that of the Plaintiff’s news report of this case, was false or unregnified; and (c) the content of the report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report of this case’s news report and news report of this case’s news report.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are all justified. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of facts against the rules of evidence, the determination of grounds for illegality in defamation, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the statement of facts and the limit of expression of criticism, as otherwise alleged in the

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)