[1] The purport of the claim for counter-performance and the standard for the court to determine the contents of the counter-statement

[2] The content and method of the counterargument report, and in a case where the counterargument report sought by the applicant contains parts beyond the limit or permissible scope in the contents, whether the court may revise and accept it (affirmative)

[1] The right to request a counterargument report under the Broadcasting Act has the meaning of the subjective meaning of remedying the victim's rights and the meaning of the objective system that allows the viewers to form a balanced public opinion by granting the victim an opportunity to assert facts contrary to the contents of a report on facts or contrary to the contents of a broadcast. In addition, when the court determines the contents of a counterargument report, it shall make the applicant recover his reputation or rights to the maximum extent possible in consideration of the counterargument report stated in the purport of the request.

[2] The counterargument report shall be limited to the factual assertion of the original report, conceptually related, and the explanation required for clearly transmitting it, and shall not include any unlawful contents. Barring any special circumstances, the number of counterargument reports shall not exceed the number of people with the content of the publication subject to the objection, and the counterargument report made in a long and long manner compared to the subject of the objection shall not be allowed, and if the counterargument report, which is sought by the applicant, contains parts beyond the limit or permitted scope of the above contents, the court may appropriately revise and cite the counterargument report so that the applicant’s honor or rights can be recovered to the maximum extent that does not go against the overall purport of the counterargument report sought by the applicant.

[1] Article 41 of the former Broadcasting Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Broadcasting Act, Act No. 6139 of Jan. 12, 2000) (see Article 91 of the current Broadcasting Act) / [2] Article 41 of the former Broadcasting Act (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the Broadcasting Act, Act No. 6139 of Jan. 12, 2000) (see Article 91 of the current Broadcasting Act), Article 4(3) of the former Broadcasting Act (see Article 91 of the current Broadcasting Act), the

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Meu818 decided Dec. 23, 1986 (Gong1987, 230) Supreme Court Decision 95Da37278 decided Dec. 23, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 489)

Applicant

Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Jong-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na27325 delivered on October 14, 1999

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the applicant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The right to request a counterargument report provided for in the Broadcasting Act has the meaning of the subjective meaning that relieves the victims of their rights and the objective system that allows viewers to form a balanced public opinion by providing the victims with an opportunity to oppose the content of a report on facts or to assert facts different from the content of a broadcast (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da37278, Dec. 23, 1996). In addition, when the court determines the contents of a counterargument report, it shall ensure that the applicant’s honor or rights can be recovered to the maximum extent possible by taking into account the counterargument report stated in the purport of the application (Article 4(3) of the Rules on the Trial for a counterargument report claim).

원심판결과 원심이 인용한 제1심판결의 이유에 의하면, 원심은 피신청인이 1998. 11. 24. 23:00경 텔레비전 프로그램인 'PD 수첩'에서 '총령본존, 어디 계십니까?'라는 제목으로 종교단체인 세계정교의 총령인 신청인에 대하여 성 관련 비리, 헌금 및 재산 관련 비리, 학력에 대한 의혹, 세계정교의 교리 및 경전의 표기, '뫄한머루'라는 동작, 언론이나 유명인사를 이용한 허세적 행동 등을 내용으로 하는 보도를 하고, 또 1998. 12. 22. 23:00경 같은 프로그램인 'PD 수첩'에서 앞서 한 보도내용을 요약해 방송하면서 신청인의 성폭행 및 금품갈취 의혹에 대하여 보도한 사실을 인정한 다음, 신청인은 그 방송프로그램에서 공표된 보도내용에 의하여 피해를 입었다고 보아야 할 것이므로, 피신청인은 신청인이 주장하는 그 판시 별지 제2, 3목록 기재 각 반론보도요구문의 내용 중 상당하다고 인정하는 그 판시 별지 제1목록 기재 반론보도문을 방송할 의무가 있다고 판단하였다.

In addition, a broadcast of the applicant’s assertion as follows, i.e., the part of the broadcast report as well as the part of the objection report indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3, and a broadcast of the counterargument report shall be broadcast in two consecutive sequences in response to the original broadcast. Moreover, a broadcast of the counterargument report shall be broadcast in the first head of the program, as well as the caption of the counterargument report, and the contents prohibiting a prior broadcast of the counterargument report prior to the broadcast of the counterargument report shall not be indicated in the text of the judgment or the counterargument report, and it shall not be limited to the factual assertion and the explanation necessary for clearly delivering such factual counterargument report, and the number of counterargument reports cannot exceed the number of the persons subject to the objection, and it shall not be allowed for the court to cite the contents of the counterargument report to the extent that it is not consistent with the applicant’s overall purport of the counterargument report or the contents of the counterargument report, unless there are any special circumstances to the contrary.

In light of the records and the purport of the claim for objection and the relevant legal provisions, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the claim for objection, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In addition, the second sentence in the first copy of the counterargument report stated in the annexed Table 1, which is pointed out by the applicant, is not a part that constitutes the applicant's counterargument itself as to the original broadcast's factual assertion, but a part that merely provides the process of the counterargument report in this case, so the applicant does not become the subject of the counterargument report. Therefore, the court below did not render a separate judgment as to the applicant's assertion that the subject of the counterargument report was erroneous, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the right to claim a counterargument report or omission of judgment that affected the conclusion of the judgment

In addition, the court below upheld the judgment of the court of first instance which determined indirect compulsory compensation in order to enforce the performance of the counterargument report of this case as five million won per day. In light of the records, the court of first instance cited by the court below, the determination of the amount of indirect compulsory compensation is proper and acceptable, and even if the court below did not determine the applicant's assertion that the amount of compensation is too small and unfair, it can be deemed that the amount of compensation as determined by the court of first instance was not unfairly small and medium, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the right to request a counterargument report of this case, or the omission of the judgment that affected the judgment.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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 Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)