[1] The degree of identity of the victim as a requirement for establishing tort caused by defamation

[2] The standard for determining whether the news articles of the press constitute a tort by damaging the reputation of others

[3] The contents of the duty of care that the press should take when reporting the suspected crime that is being investigated, and whether only the reporter of a daily newspaper perused the contents of other newspaper articles and the copy of detention warrant for the suspect can be deemed as having fulfilled the above duty of care (negative)

[4] Where the purpose of a press report is to report another person's suspected fact, but the content of the report constitutes defamation, whether the media is liable for damages caused by defamation (affirmative)

[5] The criteria for determining whether an act of defamation under civil law constitutes "a considerable reason to believe that the content of a report is true," in the case of defamation by reporting the media or not

[6] Whether the illegality of defamation against a suspect can be avoided merely by viewing the contents of other newspaper articles and copies of detention warrant for a suspect (negative)

[7] Whether the victim can be deemed to have waived his/her right to claim damages only on the basis of the media organization’s corrective report upon the request of the victim of defamation (negative), and whether the media organization’s corrective report can avoid being forced to enforce civil liability for damages arising from defamation (negative)

[1] In order to establish tort caused by defamation, the victim must be identified, but it does not necessarily require a person's name or organization's name at the time of specifying it, and even if a person's name is not indicated or two letters or initials are used, if it is possible to find out the identity of the victim in light of the contents of the expression in light of the surrounding circumstances, it shall be deemed that the victim has been identified.

[2] Whether a certain article of the press constitutes a tort by damaging another person’s reputation should be determined on the basis of the overall appearance of the article, comprehensively taking into account the objective contents of the article, the ordinary meaning of the used words, the connection method of phrases, etc., under the premise that the general readers contact the article, in relation to the overall purport of the article.

[3] In a case where the contents of a report are about the suspected facts that are being investigated, there is no particular way to confirm the truth of the reported facts, and the general readers tend to accept the report as true based on their authority and trust. It is common that damage relief by a measure such as ex post facto correction or rebuttal reporting, etc. due to extensive and rapid spread, even though the report of a newspaper has extensive and prompt wave, can not expect sufficient restoration of reputation. Thus, regardless of the truth of the contents of the report, such a report itself has the duty of care to report sufficient and sufficient coverage to support the authenticity of the reported facts. In light of the seriousness of the damage suffered by a suspect, victim, or his/her neighboring person, regardless of the truth of the contents of the report, such report itself has the duty of care to report, and only reading the contents of other newspaper articles and copies of detention warrant cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the duty of care to secure the authenticity of the contents of the report.

[4] Even if the purpose of the report does not focus on the reporting of another person's alleged fact, it is obvious that another person's alleged fact has occurred during the report, and as long as it constitutes defamation, the report should be held liable for damages caused by defamation.

[5] Even in a case where a person’s act of damaging another’s reputation is a civil act and is solely for the public interest, if it is proved to be true, such act shall not be deemed unlawful. In addition, even if there is no such proof, if there is any reasonable ground to believe the content of the report to be true, it shall not be deemed unlawful. However, in the case of defamation through the news report of the media, whether there is a reasonable ground to believe the content of the report to be true shall be determined in light of all the circumstances, including the contents of the publicly alleged fact, the evidence believed to be true, the reliability and credibility of the material, the easiness of verifying the fact, the degree of damage to the victim caused by the news, etc., and whether the actor conducted an adequate and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the report, and whether the authenticity is supported by objective and reasonable materials or evidence.

[6] Unless there are special circumstances, a daily newspaper reporter’s reading of the contents of another newspaper’s article and a copy of a detention warrant for a suspect cannot be deemed to have fulfilled all necessary coverage to guarantee the authenticity of the contents of the article. Thus, even if the news reporter’s promptness in a daily newspaper takes into account public interest elements, it cannot be deemed that carrying of such article leads to the extent that the illegality of defamation against the suspect is justified.

[7] In a case where the contents of a report are about the suspected facts that are being investigated, there is no particular way to confirm the truth of the reported report, and the contents of the report are tendencyed to be true, based on the authority of the press and its trust. It is common that damage relief cannot be expected sufficiently to be restored solely due to measures such as post-report or anti-refluence report due to the extensive and prompt spread, even though the report of a newspaper has extensive and prompt wave. Thus, it cannot be said that the victims were willing to waive their right to claim damages as a matter of course by requesting a corrective report by the newspaper company. Also, considering the result of the above victims' infringement of reputation, it cannot be deemed that the media company made a corrective report, and it cannot avoid criminal liability for damages, and it cannot be said that the freedom of the press is infringed by recognizing the liability for damages.

[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [4] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [5] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [6] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [7] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 82Do1256 delivered on November 9, 1982 (Gong1983, 129), Supreme Court Decision 93Da3622 delivered on May 10, 1994 (Gong1994, 1643) / [2] [3] [7] Supreme Court Decision 97Da10215, 1022 delivered on January 26, 199 (Gong199Sang, 330) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da10208 delivered on January 19, 200 (Gong201, 497), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37524, 37531 delivered on January 22, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 209Da379895 delivered on May 29, 209 (Gong3798, May 29, 2005)

Jin Tae (Attorney Song-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

East Asia Youth Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Na 10033 delivered on August 24, 2000

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

1. Basic facts acknowledged by the court below

According to the court below's finding that the defendants' 4 billion won was distributed to non-party 1 and the defendant's office's 20 billion won, and that the defendant's 1 and the defendant's office's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 5's 1 and the defendant's 6's 1 and the defendant's 5's 1 and the defendant's 5's 1 and the defendant's 5's 1 and the defendant's 5's 1 and the defendant's 5's 1 and the defendant's 5's 1 and the defendant's 5's 1 and the defendant's 5's 1 and the defendant's 5's 1 and the defendant's 5's 1 and the defendant's 3's 1 and the defendant's 1 and the defendant's 3's 1 and the defendant's 1.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

A. On the first ground for appeal

In order to establish tort caused by defamation, the victim must be specified, but it does not necessarily require a person's name or organization's name to be specified at the time of such specification, but it is possible to identify the identity of the victim when considering the contents of the expression in light of the surrounding circumstances and the degree that it can be possible to identify the identity of the victim when considering the contents of the expression in spite of the absence of a person's name or the use of two letters or only social.

According to the above facts, although the articles of this case expressed "Seoul Seo-gu K apartment" or "Seoul independent K apartment" as the articles of this case, in light of the surrounding circumstances and the comprehensive consideration of the surrounding circumstances, K apartment could have been aware of the fact that the residents of the apartment of this case and its surrounding persons referred to "An independent Kudong apartment" as the apartment of this case, and the victim of the attached article 1 is "the representative of occupants" of the apartment of this case, and the victim of the attached article 3 is "the representative of occupants" of the apartment of this case, and the victim of the attached article 10 (1) and (3) of the apartment management Decree (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16069 of Dec. 31, 198), the council of occupants' representatives is the chairperson, the auditor and the representative of each Dong-dong apartment, the representative of the council of occupants' representatives, and the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the plaintiff of the attached Form 1 Kim Jong-won, the plaintiff of this case, the plaintiff and the members' representative Park Jung-won, the plaintiff and the plaintiff of this case.

B. On the second ground for appeal

Whether an article of the press constitutes a tort by destroying another person’s reputation shall be determined based on the overall appearance of the article, comprehensively taking into account the objective contents of the article, the ordinary meaning of words used, connection methods of phrases, etc. under the premise of an ordinary method in which the general readers contact the article (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da10215, 1022, Jan. 26, 1999; 200Da37524, 37531, Jan. 22, 2002; 200Da37524, 37531, etc.). Where the contents of the press report are about another person’s alleged facts under investigation, it is difficult for the general readers to verify the truth of the reported facts, and as long as the contents of the press report tend to be true, it is not sufficient for the victim to obtain the right of the press to report as it is, and as such, the victim’s right to report and its contents cannot be seen as a serious news report or its content.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below held that the above facts were justified in holding that the plaintiff and the representative of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case and the representative of the plaintiff and the representative of the plaintiff did not receive any money from the non-party 1 in relation to the entrusted management contract. However, as the plaintiff and the representative received unjust money from the non-party 1, each of the above reports by the defendants should be deemed to have damaged the plaintiff and the representative's reputation, as they were aware of the residents of the apartment of this case and their surrounding persons, and each of the above reports by the defendants were due to the defendants' negligence, and therefore, the defendants are liable for each of the damages suffered by each victims, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles concerning

C. As to the third and fourth points

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 such proof, if there is considerable reason to believe the content of the report to be true, it shall be deemed unlawful. However, in defamation through the press media, the issue of 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 performed an adequate and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the report in light of the following: (b) whether it is appropriate and reasonable to verify the authenticity of the report; (c) whether it is supported by objective and reasonable materials or evidence; (d) whether the content of the report is true; and (e) whether the content of the report and the content of the report are reliable; and (e) whether the content of the report cannot be deemed as being true and reasonable; and (e) whether the report is 970Da10208, supra.

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, each article of this case shows that the purpose of the article of this case was to select apartment controlled entities which were a big problem in society at the time, and that it was for public interest. However, according to the above facts, there is no evidence to view that the part related to the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case among each article of this case is true. Rather, the article of this case which reported as if all or part of the plaintiff and the designated parties were to receive unjust money from the non-party 1 is against the truth. Further, it is insufficient to view that the article of this case was proper and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the report of this case and the testimony of the court below Kim Jong-sung, only based on the facts stated in Eul evidence No. 5 and the testimony of the court below Kim Jong-soo, the article of this case stated in the warrant of detention as to non-party 1 and the officers of the apartment of this case, and it is difficult to find that the plaintiff and the designated parties of the apartment of this case did not receive money from each of this case without any reasonable reasons to believe that they were not receive money.

D. On the fifth ground for appeal

In a case where the contents of a report are about a suspected fact that is being investigated, there is no particular way to confirm the truth of the reported report as well as the authority of the press and its trust, and it is tendency to accept the contents of the report as truth. It is common that damage relief cannot be expected sufficiently due to measures such as follow-up correction or reflect-up report due to the extensive and prompt spread of the report (Supreme Court Decision 97Da10215, 1022 delivered on January 26, 199). Since the victims request a corrective report and the newspaper company made a corrective report, it cannot be deemed that the victims were willing to waive their right to claim damages in the future. Also, considering the result of the above victims' reputation infringement, the press cannot avoid the civil liability for damages only because it has made a corrective report, and the freedom of the press can not be acknowledged by recognizing the liability for damages.

Upon examining the records in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable that the court below's rejection of the defendants' defense of exemption agreement that the plaintiff and the designated parties have renounced their right to claim damages against the defendants at the time when the plaintiff and the designated parties promised to publish a corrective report against the defendants. There is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to exemption agreement as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

E. On the sixth ground for appeal

The court below decided the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff and the selected parties in consideration of the portion of false facts among each of the articles of this case, the title, content and time of report of each of the articles of this case, the degree of effort made by the defendants to confirm the facts, the occupation, age, family relationship of the plaintiff and the designated parties, the position of the defendants in our country, the circumstances in which the defendants posted each of the articles of this case, the circumstances in which the defendants reported correction after publishing each of the articles of this case, and other various circumstances as shown in the argument of this case. In light of records, the above measures of the court below are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimacy of paying consolation money and the amount calculation.

3. Conclusion

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 Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)