[1] The standard for determining whether a newspaper or an article of the Internet media constitutes a tort by impairing the reputation of others, and the content of the duty of care borne by the press when reporting the fact that an investigation is being conducted by an investigative agency, etc.

[2] The requirements for the elimination of illegality, and the criteria for determining whether the alleged facts are related to the public interest, in a case where the reputation of others is harmed by the expression of facts through the media and the publication

[1] Whether a newspaper or Internet news article constitutes a tort by destroying another person’s reputation should be determined on the basis of an overall appearance that the news article presents to the reader by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport and objective contents of the news article, the ordinary meaning of the language used, and the connection method of phrases, etc. In particular, in a case where the contents of the news report are about facts being investigated by an investigative agency, etc., it is probable for the general reader to accept the news report as true, as well as there is no specific way to confirm the truth of the facts alleged in the news report, and even though the news report and the Internet are extensive and rapid, regardless of the truth of the news report due to the wide and rapid spread of the news report, etc. The news report of an investigative agency, etc. should be adequate and sufficient to support the authenticity of the facts alleged in the news report prior to the investigation, and if the news report of an investigative agency, etc. cites the news report without unilateral assertion by the complainant, or connects the surrounding news articles with the contents of the news report to the general reader, etc.

[2] Even in a case where another person’s reputation is harmed by a statement of fact through the media and the publication of the fact, it does not constitute illegality when it is true and solely for the public interest. Whether the alleged facts relate to the public interest should be determined by considering the specific contents of the alleged facts, the scope of the counter-party to whom the publication of the fact was made, the method of expression itself, and other relevant factors. Furthermore, the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression should be determined by comparing and considering the degree of infringement of reputation. Furthermore, it should be determined by comprehensively taking into account whether the victim’s defamation is a public figure or a general private person, and whether the victim is a public figure or a political person, such as a public figure or a political person, etc. widely interested in people’s interest and surveillance; whether the alleged facts are nothing more than leading to an interest within a limited period of time; whether the alleged facts are related to the public activity of the victim; or whether the victim’s public opinion related thereto is necessary; and whether the victim has been involved in the occurrence of public interest.

[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Article 309 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 307(1), 309(1), and 310 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29379 Decided December 27, 2007 (Gong2008Sang, 127), Supreme Court Decision 2008Da18925 Decided July 23, 2009 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15922 Decided December 22, 2006 (Gong2007Sang, 206), Supreme Court Decision 2005Da58823 Decided January 24, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 355)

Plaintiff

News Korea Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na4346 decided May 15, 2015

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The presiding judge may, in order to clarify the litigation relations, ask the parties questions, and urge them to testify, on the factual or legal matters (Article 136(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). In addition, the court shall give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions on the legal matters which are clearly recognized as being excessive by the parties (Article 136(4) of the Civil Procedure Act).

According to the records, while the Plaintiff suffered damage caused by the Defendant’s biased and unilateral report, the Plaintiff asserted that the report was basically based on the premise that the report was “false fact,” and the first instance court acknowledged the Defendant’s liability for damages on the ground that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion included the purport of claiming damages on the ground of defamation by the statement of “fact,” thereby recognizing the Defendant’s liability for damages. On the first day of pleading of the lower court, the Plaintiff stated the purport of “the publication of this fact without any false fact constitutes defamation, and thus, sought a claim for damages including damages.”

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the plaintiff finally arranged the argument that the plaintiff claimed damages because the contents of the defendant's report were false or false, and thus, the court below ordered the plaintiff to attend the hearing in order to clarify this point. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the plaintiff did not err by exceeding the limit of the exercise of the right to request the statement, or by violating the principle of disposition or the principle of pleading.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In the petition of appeal, the parties, legal representatives and the judgment of the first instance shall be indicated in the petition of appeal, and it shall be sufficient if the purport of appeal against the judgment is stated, and the degree of appeal against the appellate court to determine the scope of the judgment of the first instance shall be made clear by means of a written or oral statement, not later than the time the argument of the appellate court is concluded, so this shall not be required to be specified in the petition of appeal in advance (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da47400, Nov. 25, 1994

In addition, the object to be tried by the appellate court is limited to the object of appeal which is not limited to the part of appeal which is not appealed, and the remaining parts which are not appealed are also prevented by the appeal and it is transferred to the appellate court. Therefore, the appellant can expand the purport of appeal as well as the purport

According to the records, the plaintiff clearly stated that he/she is dissatisfied with the judgment of the court of first instance in the petition of appeal, and changed the purport of appeal by claiming additional damages for delay that he/she did not claim in the first instance while submitting the statement of grounds of appeal. Then, the court below stated that the amount of KRW 20 million in the purport of appeal in the petition of appeal shall include KRW 3 million as cited in the court of first instance on the date of pleading of the court below, and made clear the purport of appeal and the purport of appeal

In light of the above legal principles, the presiding judge of the court below did not order the correction of the petition of appeal or dismiss the petition of appeal, but did not clarify the purport of appeal on the date of pleading, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of appeal or the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in the appellate court's right to request a review of the petition of appeal or the principle of disposition right or the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, etc.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 through 5

A. Whether a newspaper or an Internet news article constitutes a tort by impairing the reputation of another person ought to be determined on the basis of overall appearance that the article provides to the readers, comprehensively taking into account the overall purport and objective contents of the article, the ordinary meaning of the language used, and the connection method of phrases, on the premise that the general readers contact the article. In particular, in a case where the contents of the news report are about facts being investigated by an investigative agency, etc., it is probable that the contents of the news report can be accepted as a truth without any specific way to confirm the truth of the alleged facts, and even though the news report and Internet are extensive and rapid, it is probable that the contents of the news report can be accepted as a truth, and such news report itself is also subject to serious damages regardless of the truth of the news report. Accordingly, the media that reports the fact of investigation by an investigative agency, etc. should be adequately and sufficiently covered, and if the contents of the news report do not appear to have been cited without unilateral assertion of the verified complainants, 207 should also be linked to the contents or surrounding news article 970.

Meanwhile, even in cases where a person’s reputation is harmed by the media and publication of facts, such act is not unlawful if it is true and solely for the public interest. Whether the alleged facts relate to the public interest or not should be determined by considering all the circumstances regarding the expression itself, such as the details of the alleged facts, the scope of the counter-party to which the fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and comparing and comparing the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15922 Decided December 22, 2006). Furthermore, from among public figures, whether the victim of defamation is a public figure or a private person, or a person who is subject to public interest and surveillance of citizens widely, such as public official or political person, whether the alleged facts constitute a subject of public interest and surveillance within a limited period of time, whether the alleged facts are related to the public activities of the victim in the field of public activities or the public interest and social nature of the victim, and whether the victim’s public interest and public opinion related thereto are related thereto.

B. According to the judgment below and the judgment of the first instance as cited by the court below, and the records, the article of this case 1 is more likely to focus on the delivery of facts that the Plaintiff, a film supervisor, unilaterally cites the Non-Party’s statement of the Plaintiff and deliver the contents of the complaint, and there is no objective fact confirmation as to key matters. Rather, the article of this case 1 is not a method of citing the Non-Party’s statement or the non-party’s statement and urging improvement measures as to the composition and contents of the article of this case, but is a public fact that is confirmed by the reporter, rather than a public fact that the Plaintiff’s personal right, which belongs to the “△△△△△△△△△”’s personal right, is mainly an internal film of the Plaintiff’s subject of sexual crime, rather than an internal one of the media article of this case.

Examining these points in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below is justified in holding that the article 1 of this case was illegal on the grounds of its stated reasoning. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding the illegality of defamation, violating the rules of evidence, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)