Plaintiff 1 and 426 others (Attorney Jeong-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. and two others (Law Firm Jeongse et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 25, 2009

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Gahap17497 Decided February 17, 2009

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The part regarding the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendants pay to each of the plaintiffs 1,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Cultural Broadcasting”) is a broadcasting business operator for the purpose of broadcasting business and cultural service business, and is a company producing and broadcasting the program “PD pocket book” (hereinafter “PD pocket book”). Defendant 2 is a producer who was responsible for planning and producing the PD pocket book at the time of the instant broadcast, and Defendant 3 is a producer who is responsible for carrying out the PD pocket book, and Defendant 3 is a producer who is responsible for carrying out the instant broadcast.

B. The Defendant’s cultural broadcast broadcast used the broadcast of the title “PD Notebook” for a period of 60 minutes from April 29, 2008 to 24:00, “Is U.S. Beef safe from Mad Cow Disease?” (hereinafter “instant broadcast”).

C. Contents of the instant broadcast

The Defendant Culture Broadcasting reported to the effect that U.S. beef affected by Mad Cow Disease in the broadcast of this case can be imported from Korea due to the import sanitary condition of U.S. beef as amended on April 18, 2008, and thus may threaten the lives and health of the people. The main contents of the broadcast of this case are as follows.

(1) The United States: (a) prevented the slaughter of all cattle showing symptoms that have come to sit after the first outbreak of a luminous disease in 2003; (b) however, in some slaughterhouses, the U.S. slaughtered the cattle (one roller, dow cow) which has still been affected by a luminous disease.

(2) The Nonparty was dead on April 16, 2008 by the U.S. female Nonparty, and his family and the main family are suspected of being the cause of death of the Nonparty.

(3) On April 18, 2008, the Government of Korea agreed on the import sanitary requirements of U.S. beef (hereinafter “the import sanitary requirements of U.S. beef”). As a result, only the import of satisesless satises without bones prior to the filing of a lawsuit for less than 30 months of age, but only the import of all parts other than 2 parts of the 7th hazardous substances (SM) is permitted.

(4) Since the ratio of Korean nationals with a specific gene type (M) is 94%, the probability that when Korean nationals take in beef affected by Mab Cow Disease reaches 94%, human form of Mab Cow Disease shall reach 94%, which is approximately three times the case in the case in the United Kingdom, and approximately two times the case in the case in the United States.

(5) even if people take in dangerous substances of 0.1g, they shall be infected by human oreopic disease, and shall die by 100 per cent when human oreopic disease is infected.

(6) Although the Korean government expands the country of origin of beef, if the U.S. beef contains the U.S. beef ingredients without direct consumption, it is doubtful that the U.S. beef can be infected by human form of beef disease through spile, Albulululule, cosmetics, etc.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 3, evidence 4-1 and 2-2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserts as follows as the grounds for the claim of this case.

A. The Defendants, with the intent to promote fear of Mad Cow Disease, fabricated or distorted facts as follows, and broadcasted the instant broadcast of false contents.

(1) Despite the very low possibility of having suffered from Mad Cow Disease, the instant broadcast was falsely reported that the Mad Cow Disease was affected by Mad Cow Disease or that the Mad Cow Disease was highly likely to have been affected by Mad Cow Disease.

(2) Although there is no evidence to deem that the non-party to the U.S. female was dead as a human form of depression, the instant broadcast was falsely reported to the effect that the non-party died as a human form of depression.

(3) According to the definition of the International Office for Import of U.S. Beef (OE), 7 parts of a lawsuit over the age of 30 months, such as brain, snow, salone, salone, salone, salone, salone, salone, salone, and salone abandonment, constitute a specific dangerous substance. However, in the case of a lawsuit over the age of 30 months, salone and 2 salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone

(4) Since the Mad Cow Disease Mad Cow Mad Cow Mad Cow Mad Cow Mad Cow Mad Cow Mad Cow Mad Cow Mad Cow Mad Cow Mad Cow Mad Cow Mad Co., Ltd.

(5) Although there was no case where a person was infected by a human form of Masp, cosmetics or medicine, etc., and there was a very low possibility of infection by a human form of Masp, cosmetic, or substance derived from cattle, the instant broadcast reported the risk of Masp, without any basis, to exaggeration the risk of Masp, without any ground.

B. Article 1 of the Broadcasting Act provides that “The purpose of this Act is to protect the rights and interests of viewers, promote the formation of democratic public opinion, improve national culture, and contribute to the development of broadcasting and the promotion of public welfare by guaranteeing the freedom and independence of broadcasting, and enhancing the public responsibility of broadcasting.” It emphasizes the public responsibility of broadcasting to protect the rights and interests of viewers. Article 5 of the Broadcasting Act provides that broadcasting shall respect the dignity and value of human beings and the fundamental order of democracy, contribute to the unity and development of the nation in harmony with the unity of the people and democratic public opinion, shall not encourage any conflict between regions, generations, classes, and sexes, and shall not harm others’ reputation or infringe upon their rights. Article 6 of the Broadcasting Act provides that the report by broadcasting shall be fair and objective, and that the public responsibility of broadcasting shall be made to provide equal opportunity to other groups with the opinion in disclosing the policies, etc. of the government or a specific group, and that the act of broadcasting should be intentionally distorted and distorted in the formulation of the broadcast programs with respect to each political party to the public interest of Defendant 2, thereby pursuing the public interest and fairness and fairness of the broadcast.

C. Article 10 of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness." Article 5 (1) of the former Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (amended by Act No. 9425 of Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter "former Act on Press Arbitration") provides that "the press shall not infringe upon the rights of life, freedom, body, health, honor, privacy, freedom, portrait, name, voice, voice, sound, works, private documents and other personal values (hereinafter "personal rights"). Article 30 of the former Act on Press Arbitration provides that "Any person who suffers property damage, infringes on personal rights or causes other mental distress due to an illegal act committed intentionally or by negligence by the press may claim compensation for such damage to the press organization." Thus, the defendants are obligated to compensate for damage caused by the plaintiffs' infringement on the plaintiffs' personality rights or property rights due to the broadcasting of this case.

D. The Plaintiffs, the viewers of the instant broadcast and the general public, as seen above, have intentionally distorted the instant broadcast, thereby having suffered emotional distress or property damage as follows by viewing the instant broadcast.

(1) Due to the government's severe incompetence and fear of beef, etc., which caused the damage to the people due to the failure of the government to negotiate beef with the U.S. at a proper level, the right to health, the right to pursue happiness, etc., or the conflict between the plaintiffs' families, workplaces, and relatives due to the lack of opinion on the safety issues of U.S. beef, and infringement of personal rights, such as the plaintiffs' right to health, the right to pursue happiness, etc., or the plaintiffs' family, workplace, and relatives, etc., and the fundamental incompetence of the broadcast program and the public decentralization of the defendant's cultural broadcasting.

(2) The broadcast of this case suffered mental suffering due to illegal assemblies and demonstrations opposing the import of U.S. beef produced by the broadcast of this case, resulting in inconvenience in traffic at the time of commuting to and from work.

(3) Some of the Plaintiffs engaged in export and import business have suffered business losses that may result in the loss of customers due to the inconvenient relationship with foreign customers due to the controversy over luminous diseases, and some of the Plaintiffs engaged in taxi business or restaurant business have suffered losses due to sudden decrease in sales.

E. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay each of the Plaintiffs KRW 1,00,000 to compensate for damages for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiffs due to their tort as above committed by the Defendants.

3. Determination

A. First of all, the fact that the Constitution and the pertinent laws prescribe the contents as alleged by the Plaintiffs is obvious in light of the Constitution and the relevant laws, and thus, the broadcast is obligated to report fair, objective, and true facts. Therefore, if the broadcast of this case reported false facts in violation of the above duties, and thereby infringed on the Plaintiffs’ personality rights or property rights, Defendant 2 and 3, who were involved in the production and broadcast of the instant broadcast and the broadcast of this case, are liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs.

B. Therefore, in order to impose the liability for damages suffered by the plaintiffs on the defendants, the broadcast of this case shall be presumed to have infringed on the plaintiffs' personality rights or property rights. Furthermore, in order to determine whether the plaintiffs' personality rights or property rights have been infringed due to the broadcast of this case, the broadcast of this case shall be deemed to have been named or specified in the contents of the press report, or to have a direct interest or an individual relation with the contents of the press report at least, and even if a person, who is not directly related to the contents of the press, caused a subjective uneasiness, fear, unreshion, and decentralization or conflict due to the comparison of opinions with others, it shall not be deemed that the personality rights have been infringed or suffered damage caused by the press report, and even if a person who is not directly related to the contents of the press report indirectly suffered property damage due to other reasons caused by the press report, it shall not be deemed to have suffered damage caused by the press report.

C. Regarding the instant case, even according to the Plaintiffs’ assertion itself, the Plaintiffs are merely general viewers, and they are not referred to or specified in the instant broadcast, or have no direct interest in, or have no personal relation with, the instant broadcast. Ultimately, the broadcast of this case cannot be deemed to have infringed on the Plaintiffs’ personality rights or property rights. Accordingly, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, the broadcast of this case led to uneasiness, fear, unreshion, and decentralization, etc., or suffered emotional distress due to the division of opinions with others, even if they were to have suffered emotional distress due to the occurrence of infertility and conflict, or the occurrence of property damage, etc., it cannot be deemed as damage in connection with the instant broadcast.

D. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case premised on the fact that the plaintiffs suffered emotional distress due to the infringement of plaintiffs' personality rights or property rights due to the broadcast of this case are not reasonable without any need to further examine whether the broadcast of this case constitutes a false broadcast of distorted contents.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)