[1] The standard for determining whether a newspaper article has committed a tort by impairing another's reputation

[2] Where the media defames another person by pointing out facts, the grounds for excluding illegality in a case where the media defames another person, and where the media posted and stored materials on the data room or bulletin board of the virtual community on the Internet without any investigation or confirmation of facts, whether it can be deemed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the content thereof is true (negative)

[3] Matters to be considered when establishing the limitation between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, and whether the restriction on the freedom of press against an individual is mitigated when the relevant expression is against another press organization (affirmative)

[4] The case holding that, in a case where a press organization posted an article that defames another press organization by citing a statement made by an invitation researcher at a political lecture, since the above article belongs to the scope that should be protected as a performance of legitimate surveillance and criticism of a press organization, the act of defamation is not deemed unlawful since it is malicious or considerably unreasonable

[1] In order to establish defamation through a press report, a statement of specific facts must be made that may undermine the victim's social evaluation. Whether a newspaper's news constitutes a tort due to damages to another person's reputation should be determined based on the overall appearance of the article in consideration of the objective contents of the article, the ordinary meaning of used words, and the method of linking phrases, etc. under the premise of the general method of viewing the article's news as a whole, in relation to the overall purport of the article, under the premise of the general method of viewing the article's news. The meaning of the article in question should also be considered in light of the social trend underlying the article.

[2] Even in a case where a media media used a fact-finding act and defames another person’s reputation, if it is solely for the public interest, it is not unlawful if the alleged fact is proved to be true or there is no proof to prove that it was true or there is a considerable reason to believe that it was true. The free information obtained on the Internet can be easily reproduced, processed, posted, and transmitted by anyone, and its authenticity is unclear and its sources are difficult to be specified. Thus, if the media reported materials posted and stored in the data room or bulletin board of a virtual community connected by people interested in a specific matter and made a statement of fact that could undermine another person’s social reputation without any investigation or confirmation of facts, it is difficult to deem that there is a considerable reason to believe that a household actor believed the content of the information to be true.

[3] In establishing the limitation between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, the criteria for review should be differentiated depending on whether the victim damaged reputation due to the relevant expression is a public figure or a private figure, and whether the expression concerns a purely private matter or belongs to the private sphere. In the case of expression as to a matter of public and social meaning, the restriction on the freedom of press should be mitigated. In particular, in a case where the relevant expression is against a media company, as the media company has a wide range of the scope of enjoying the freedom of press as a criticism against others, the media company can prevent itself from forming a distorted public opinion due to erroneous information. The guarantee of personal rights of one media company is different, while restricting the freedom of press of the other media company, the monitoring and criticism function of the media company should not be easily restricted unless it is malicious or substantially lost, and it can be considered that there is a wide degree of expression of defamation against an individual.

[4] The case holding that in a case where a press organization posted an article that defames another press organization by citing a statement made by the invitation director in a political lecture, since the authenticity of the content is unclear and the source of the content is hard to be specified without a separate verification procedure, it cannot be deemed that there is a considerable reason to believe that the above article belongs to the truth, in light of all circumstances, to the extent that it should be protected as a performance of legitimate supervision and criticism against the press organization, and such defamation is not deemed unlawful because it is in bad faith or considerably unreasonable.

[1] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 21(4) of the Constitution, Article 30 of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press / [2] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 310 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports / [3] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 21(4) of the Constitution, Article 30 of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports / [4] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 310 of the Criminal Act, Article 21(4) of the Constitution

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da75736 Decided February 14, 2008 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37647 Decided January 24, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 688) Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29379 Decided December 27, 2007 (Gong2008Sang, 127) / [2/3] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52142 Decided March 23, 2006 (Gong206Sang, 713) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da8262 Decided February 14, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6426367 decided July 26, 2007

Orma News Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Jeongse, Attorneys Han Sang-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na10888 delivered on August 1, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na102241 Delivered on July 19, 2006

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The cooking of evidence and the fact-finding based thereon belong to the full power of the fact-finding court unless they violate the rules of experience or logic and violate the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu683, Nov. 8, 198; 2005Da77848, May 25, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the defendants reported in the article of this case that "the article of this case that "the 2 reporters (the 2 reporters) can create a case without any intention to create a social necessary issue" although the non-party 2 reporters (the 2 reporters) declared the source of the article posted on the Internet bulletin board called "Jinnuri" as the invitation researcher at the Seoul Jindong political Practice Group 2004 Total Assembly held in Seoul on March 31, 2004, and the non-party 1 used it again, and "the 2 reporters (the 2 reporters) could create a case without any intention to create a social necessary issue," and the non-party 2 reporters (the 2 reporters) should create a non-party 2 reporters (the 2 reporters) should make a non-party 2's report in order to create a social necessary issue, and the court below's decision that the behavior of remunerations and other remuneration newspapers had been very poor, such as the malmorological and open, is not justified, and the court's decision is justified.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. In order to establish defamation through a press report, a statement of specific facts must be made that may undermine the victim's social evaluation. Whether a newspaper's news constitutes a tort due to damages to another person's reputation should be determined on the basis of the overall appearance that the article provides to its readers by comprehensively taking into account the objective contents, the ordinary meaning of the words used, the connection method of phrases, etc. under the premise of the overall purport of the article, in relation to the article's general method of dealing with the article. Moreover, the meaning of the relevant expression should also be considered in light of the social flow that served as the background of the article (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da64487, Jul. 14, 2005; 2007Da29379, Dec. 27, 2007).

On the other hand, even if the media has committed an act that defames another person by pointing out a fact, if it is solely for the public interest as a matter of public interest, it shall be deemed unlawful if the alleged fact is proved to be true or there is no evidence to prove it as true (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da52142, Mar. 23, 2006; 2005Da8262, Feb. 1, 2008; 2005Da75736, Feb. 14, 2008; 2005Da75736, Feb. 6, 2008; and it is difficult to readily identify the truth and origin of the information obtained free of charge on the Internet, and it is hard to find that there is any other person’s 60 reason to believe that there is any other person’s social research or fact-finding 60, etc., by reporting it to the Internet community or bulletin board, etc. (see, 20060).

However, in setting the limit between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, the criteria for review should be differentiated depending on whether the victim damaged reputation due to the relevant expression is a public figure or a private figure, and whether the expression concerns a purely private matter or belongs to the public domain. In the case of expression concerning a matter of public and social meaning, the restriction on the freedom of press should be mitigated. In particular, in a case where the relevant expression is against a media company, as long as the scope of enjoying freedom of press as the media company is broad, it should be wide. A media company has a medium that is able to reflect itself, thereby preventing the formation of distorted public opinion due to erroneous information, and guaranteeing one media’s personality right is different, while restricting the freedom of press of the other media company, the monitoring and criticism function of the media company should not be easily restricted or substantially restricted (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da208254, May 26, 2002).

B. In light of the above legal principles and records, although the defendants expressed their full text (a specialized) in the manner of citing Nonparty 1’s remarks from the article of this case, they did not clearly state the source of Nonparty 2’s speech in the form of “Non-Party 1’s entire expression,” and further, they did not state the source of Non-Party 2’s speech in the form of “Non-Party 1’s speech ?........, the above door was immediately attached to the above door, which read “Non-Party 2’s speech ............, it is difficult to view that Non-Party 1’s speech ......., it violated the Plaintiff’s social value or evaluation by citing Non-Party 1’s appearance as the source of the article of this case’s news, and it is difficult to view that Non-Party 2’s statement or its content was an unlawful content of the Internet news report, and it is also difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s content and content of this case’s Internet bulletin.

However, on the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., Nonparty 1’s assertion of the fact of the above Nonparty 2’s speech in the context of criticism that Nonparty 1’s voluntary press operation, such as remuneration or fact of fact of fact of fact of fact of the Internet media, in itself, can be seen as having strongly expressed facts of the above Nonparty 2’s speech. Nonparty 1, who is known as having considerable social influence as an inventiveist, can be seen as having considerable value of article. Nonparty 1’s statement of fact of the above Nonparty 2 in the open lecture, which constitutes an act of defamation against the Plaintiff. The entire purport of the article of this case, is to introduce the contents of Nonparty 1’s lecture, and it is inevitable to consider that Nonparty 1’s assertion of fact of fact of fact of fact of the above media constitutes an unlawful expression of the news media, and to consider that the part of the article of this case’s article of this case’s article of this case’s statement of fact of fact of fact of the Plaintiff’s 2’s rash.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged the illegality of the article of this case for the reason that the article of this case constitutes defamation and is contrary to the truth and there is no reasonable ground to believe the truth without making any judgment as to whether the defendants' defamation was malicious or considerably unreasonable. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for excluding defamation and illegality, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)