Applicant (Attorney Ansan-gu et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na11488 decided May 2, 200

July 20, 2004

Seoul District Court Decision 2001Kao16806 Delivered on February 1, 2002

1. All appeals filed by the respondent are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

1. The respondent corporation Easternian Co., Ltd.:

A. Attached Form 1-1(a) shall be attached to the upper part of the first page of the East Asian Report, which was first published after the pronouncement of the first instance judgment, and the editing of which was not completed, to the upper part of the first instance judgment. The title of the counterargument report shall be deemed to be a class 50 in the original body, the main body shall be deemed to be a class active, and the part of the claim for objection shall be deemed to be a class 30 in

B. Attached Form 1-1(b) on the face of 220 pages of the Newdong, which was first issued after the pronouncement of the first instance trial of this case, where editing has not been completed. The title of the counterargument report is as follows: the main text, the main text, and the main text, and the part of the claim for counterargument report should be published in the form of a studio of 50 stitic body, and in the form of

2. The Respondent Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

A. Attached Form 1-2(a) shall be attached to the upper part of the first page of the Chotegical Report, which was first published after the pronouncement of the first instance judgment, and the editing of which was not completed. The title of the counterargument report shall be expressed in the upper part of the first instance judgment; the main part shall be in the class 50, the main part shall be in the form of a studio; the part of the claim for counterargument report shall be in the form of

B. Attached 1-2(b) No. 1-2 on the 30th page of the daytime Line, which was first issued after the pronouncement of the first instance judgment, and the editing of which was not completed. The title of the counterargument shall be indicated in the title as the 50th class active of the ancientitic body, the main part of the main part, and the part of the claim for counterarguments shall be indicated in the 30th class stit

3. The Central Daily Report Co., Ltd., the respondent, the first editing of which was not completed after the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be published in the upper part of the Central Daily Report No. 1 which was published for the first time on which the editing of the first instance court was not completed, on the top part of the Central Daily Report No. 1 which was published for the first time, in the part of the title No. 1-3 counterargument 50, the part of the main body

4. An independent newspaper company, the respondent, the independent newspaper company, shall publish the counterargument No. 1-4 report in attached Form 26, the title of which was published for the first time after the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court of this case, on the face of the 26th page of the Slick International Act. The title of the counterargument No. 1-4 report shall be 50, the main text, the main text, and the part of the claim for objection shall

5. If paragraph 1 of this Article applies to the respondent corporation; Paragraph 2 of this Article; Paragraph 3 is applied to the respondent corporation; Paragraph 3 is applied to the defendant corporation; and Paragraph 4 is not applied to the respondent corporation; and Paragraph 4 is applied to the defendant corporation, the respondent shall pay 30,000,000 each day to the applicant from the day after the expiration of the above period until the completion of the performance.

Purport of appeal

Each part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the respondent shall be revoked, and all applications filed against the respondent for the revocation part shall be dismissed.

The purport of the motion such as the cancellation judgment

When the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, the respondent may report each of the revocation judgment reports by the respondent listed in attached Form 2. The Respondent shall pay KRW 10,000,000 to the Respondent Co., Ltd., the Respondent Co., Ltd., the Respondent Co., Ltd., the Respondent Co., Ltd., and the Central Daily Co., Ltd., and KRW 4,00,000 to the independent

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this court's explanation is to delete the part of "the fact that the applicant has reported that he had graduated from the Gwangju High Court." This court's reasoning is to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters claimed by the respondent.

2. Additional judgment;

A. Respondent's assertion

The respondent asserts that the content of a part of the report that the applicant seeks a counterargument report is not reported by the respondent, and that the content of the counterargument report that the applicant seeks is obviously contrary to facts or does not have any legitimate interest in exercising a claim for counterargument report, and at the same time, the respondent seeks to dismiss each of the applications of this case, and at the same time the judgment of the first instance court is revoked, claims a cancellation judgment, news report and damages pursuant to Article 19-2

B. Nature of claim for counterargument

(1) The right to request a counterargument report has meaning as an objective system that enables the readers to form a balanced public opinion by allowing the publisher of a periodical to make a written claim for a counterargument report within one month from the date on which a person injured by a factual assertion published in a periodical becomes aware of such factual news (Article 16 to 19 of the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act, hereinafter the above Act is referred to as the "regular law"), and as part of the modern situation where the social influence of the mass media increases, general citizens whose rights are infringed due to a factual news by the mass media have access to the mass media and give them an opportunity to assert facts contrary to or different from the content of the press.

(2) The right to request a counterargument report is not a right to demand a press organization to correct the content of a periodical report in a manner consistent with the truth, but a right to demand a press organization to report the content of the news report claimed by the victim about the content of the report (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Hun-Ma165, Jan. 28, 1986; 89Hun-Ma165, Sept. 16, 1991). In order to exercise the above right to demand a counterargument report, a person who has an individual relation with the press report requests the person responsible for the counterargument report to publish the counterargument report within a certain period. The press organization in question shall publish the counterargument report regardless of the authenticity of the original report or the specific damage of the claimant, and it is only subject to deliberation in a court proceeding.

(3) The right to reply is established for the prompt relief of victims against the nature of the mass media with a rapid speed and wide range of delivery. If only a certain formal requirement is met, complicated legal relationship is not followed. If the victims are relieved of their rights only through the formal trial procedure required for a long time period, it is not effective to remedy the public only after the fact is discovered. Thus, in the modern society where the mass media developed with high speed, the right to reply is lost to the remaining pending issues being delayed so that the readers cannot know what the contents of the original report are the premise of the right to reply, which is one of the grounds for recognizing the right to reply, and it is contrary to the purport of guaranteeing the press system as an objective order (see Constitutional Court Order 95Hun-Ba25, Apr. 25, 1996).

(4) In order to promote the swiftness of the trial procedure so that a prompt response to the original report, which is the life of the system for claiming a counterargument report, is not practically impossible due to a deliberation or an overly careful deliberation on the authenticity of the original report which is not the requirement of the claim for a counterargument report, the adjudication rules on the claim for a counterargument report such as the fixed law and the counterargument report shall judge the claim for a counterargument report pursuant to the provisions on the provisional disposition procedure under the Civil Execution Act, but not the necessity of preservation, and exclude the application of the provisions on the provision on the provision on the provision on the provision on security. On the other hand, with respect to a judgment citing a counterargument report, the adjudication of the first instance court shall be made within three months from the date

C. Determination as to whether the contents of the counterargument report claimed in this case are obviously contrary to facts

(1) The respondent asserts that the content of the petitioner's claim for objection of this case, in particular, the applicant's claim for objection of this case is not related to violence organization, or the part that the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non

(2) The proviso of Article 16(3) of the Act provides that where the victim does not have legitimate interests in exercising a claim for counterargument news, the content of the claimed counterargument news is obviously contrary to facts, or the commercial purpose is only commercial advertisement, a printing of the counterargument news may be refused.

Therefore, with respect to the meaning of “where the content of the claimed counterargument report is obviously contrary to the fact,” which is the passive requirement of the claim for counterargument report, as seen earlier, the claim for counterargument report has the character of a formal right recognized by the Act so that an article about a specific person is published in a periodical, etc. separate from the remedy system for infringement of the existing press in order to protect human dignity, enhance the public responsibility of the press, and guarantee the public access right to the press, and apart from the remedy system for infringement of the press, the claim for counterargument report has the character of a formal right recognized by the Act so that it can promptly file a counterargument report within the scope of the original article. In order to establish the claim for counterargument report, the issue of whether the contents of the original report are true or not is not at issue and the truth of the counterargument report is not at issue in principle, the “fact” in the passive requirement of the claim for counterargument report is not a concept different from the “fact-finding” in Articles 764 and 750 of the Civil Act, and ultimately, if the contents of the claim for counterargument report are obviously contrary to the general rule of experience or general knowledge.

If the meaning of “fact” in the passive requirement of a claim for a counter-report is not narrowly interpreted as above, in the event of a claim for counter-report, the fact cannot be determined through an examination procedure through evidence examination, etc. in order to determine which part of the original report and the counterargument report requested by the victim is consistent with the objective truth. In such a case, not only can the request for the swiftness of the claim for counter-report seeking to guarantee the opportunity for immediate counter-statement in response to the original report be dismissed, but also it will result in the influence of the independent existence of the claim for counter-report that is separate from the claim for a counter-report.

(3) Furthermore, according to the statement of evidence Nos. 12-1, 2, 3, 13, 14-6, 7, 8, and 15 of this case, the applicant was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act on September 18, 1992 due to the fact that the Gwangju High Court provided funds to the International PPJ, which is a violent organization, as an advisory officer on September 18, 1992, and completed the execution of the sentence on May 1996. In the process of receiving money from the non-party from the non-party or embezzlement of the non-party's money, and arrange for the issuance of overseas convertible bonds from the non-party, and the fact that the applicant was indicted on the non-party's share of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which can not be viewed as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to this case).

D. Determination as to whether the applicant has a legitimate interest in exercising the claim for objection to the instant case

(1) The respondent asserts that the content of the counterargument report of this case requested by the applicant is a stimulious and short, and even if it is necessary to make a counterargument, the respondent has already published an article against the original news at the request of the related person, or has published the same content of the respondent's claim for counterargument as the content of the respondent's claim for counterargument by means of reporting the contents of the statement of the related person in the original news report itself, and that the content of the respondent's report is true, as alleged above, since the content of the counterargument report of this case is confirmed to be true through a final and conclusive judgment, etc., the respondent has no legitimate

(2) The phrase “where a person has no legitimate interest” as a ground for refusal of a request for objection is a requirement to guarantee normal press activities from abuse or abuse of a claim for objection, which is a formal right. As seen earlier, the determination of whether there is a reason for refusal, is a very formal requirement, which would be a substantial standard to restrict a request for objection in light of the fact that it is very formal. In general, in a case where the fact that is another reason for refusal, or the press voluntarily corrected the previous report by ex post facto reports, or where the contents of the victim’s assertion are sufficiently reflected in the original report to the extent that it would be identical with the counterargument report, there is no legitimate interest in exercising the right

On the other hand, in principle, the act of damaging another person's reputation by pointing out facts shall not be recognized regardless of whether the alleged facts are true or not, and if such facts are violated, it shall not be exempt from civil or criminal liability. However, in order to secure citizens' right to know and form fair public opinion, the press can exceptionally report the true facts which defames other person's reputation.

However, even if the press reports an individual's misconduct or illegal fact on the grounds of the public interest and truth in accordance with the freedom of the press, and there is no liability accordingly, it cannot be denied for the same reason as the victim's demand in response to the defamation caused by the report. Thus, the legitimate interest in the exercise of the claim for counter-statement refers to the substantial benefit or necessity to respond to the original report from the applicant's standpoint. In conclusion, the legitimate interest in the exercise of the claim for counter-statement refers to the substantial benefit or necessity to respond to the original report from the applicant's standpoint. In addition, if it is deemed that there is an infringement of the victim's self-identification or reputation by comprehensively taking into account not only the direct content of the original report but also the background, quantity, intention, and overall news contents

(3) As seen earlier, the circumstance that it is difficult to view the applicant’s academic background among the applicant’s demand for a counterargument report as a shot of the original literary report is difficult. Meanwhile, according to the written evidence Nos. 4-7, 13, and Ma-Ma, the respondent corporation and the Central Press Corporation that raised the issue of the original literary report shall be deemed as a political person, Gwangju, Gwangju, and the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service at the request of the relevant person, and the fact that the Respondent posted an article of the Respondent partially shot up with the contents of the applicant’s request for a counterargument report, which is consistent with the contents of the Respondent’s request for a counterargument report at the time of the original literary report. However, considering the fact that the Respondent’s request for a counterargument report is published at the request of the applicant or that part of the Respondent’s request for a counterargument report is not sufficient to represent the applicant’s position, the Respondent’s argument that the Respondent’s demand for a counterargument report or its contents cannot be deemed as having any legitimate interests of the Respondent’s opinion or legitimate contents of the report.

E. Determination of the respondent's other arguments

(1) The respondent asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case is unlawful because the reason for the original report or the counterargument report, which is the subject of the claim, was not specified by article, or that it was not a part of the report.

(2) The counterargument report shall be limited to a factual statement and an explanation necessary to clearly transmit the factual statement to a specific original report, and shall not contain any unlawful contents (Article 16(4) of the Act). The specific contents not only reflect the contents of the original report, but also include the contents of the original report, the contents of supplement to supplement the original report, and the contents of resolving the uncertainty of the original report, and the new facts may be indicated as evidence or evidence necessary for the legitimacy of the statement alleged in the counterargument report, and the court may appropriately revise and accept the report so that the applicant’s reputation or rights can be recovered within the extent that it does not go against the overall purport of the counterargument report (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Da63138, Mar. 24, 2000; 4(3) of the adjudication Rule on Claim for a counterargument report, etc.).

(3) Each original report of this case by the respondent is a common and core part of the report of this case, which is "any suspicion that has been involved in the case of the so-called non-party, such as the political party as a result of organized violence, and the applicant who has a considerable connotation with the personnel of the police and the prosecutor's office, with them as a non-defense force, etc.", and is developed in the form of additional materials supporting the above core contents by each respondent or the statement of the related person is described. Thus, since the contents of the request for a counterargument report of this case require a comprehensive counterargument report of the respondent that comprehensively reflects the core and common matters among the contents of the above report by the respondent, the request for a counterargument report of this case cannot be deemed unlawful because it is not related to the original report or its claim is not specified. Thus, the respondent's assertion about this is without merit.

In addition, even if the original news report is not directly described, if it can be indirectly expressed or expressed through the overall news report's purpose, background, contents, etc., if the contents of the report can be acknowledged, it shall be recognized as a counterargument. Therefore, although the respondent did not directly express the fact that the applicant is related to the organization violence in each original news report of this case, the respondent does not directly express the fact that the applicant is in relation to the organization violence, but frequently mentions the applicant's past power or statements, etc., and it appears that the applicant gives the applicant an increase or suggest that he is related to the organization of violence at present, it shall be possible to make a claim for a counterargument report. Meanwhile, as the respondent asserted in Dong Daily Co., Ltd., Ltd., the fact that the respondent did not report that the applicant is the applicant's origin such as the non-party, although there is no dispute between the parties, the applicant does not constitute an essential part of the report's news report's news report's news report's contents, and the applicant's assertion that the applicant is not related to the non-party's news report's relation with the non-party.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, even if some of the content of the Respondent's report of this case was found to be objective truth by the court's final judgment, etc., as long as the Claimant's claim of this case satisfies the formal requirements for it, the Respondent's claim of this case shall be deemed to have a duty to publish the counter-claim of the Claimant within a reasonable scope. Thus, the Claimant's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the counter-claim recognized by the court of first instance, and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed as without any justifiable reason. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified as the conclusion, and therefore, the Respondent's appeal shall be dismissed as it is all of the Respondent's grounds for appeal (the Respondent's claim of revocation,

[Attachment List]

Judges Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Judge)