2015Da240829 Damage (as defined)

A person shall be appointed.

1. A national daily newspaper company;

2. The female news company;

3. News1;

4. New Zealand Co., Ltd.

5. Daily economic newspaper company.

6. Culture newsletter of a stock company;

7. Busan Busan Urban Planning Corporation.

8. Busan Cultural Broadcasting Corporation;

9. The Yonhap News Corporation;

10. LibC Creves Co., Ltd. (former trade name: Libreves et al.):

C&D Corb Co., Ltd.)

Busan District Court Decision 2014444878 Decided September 11, 2015

November 9, 2018

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a news report constitutes a tort by destroying another person’s reputation should be determined based on the overall appearance of the news report that the news report pertains to its original identity, comprehensively taking into account the objective contents, the ordinary meaning of words used, and the connection method of phrases, etc. under the premise that the general readers contact the news report. In particular, in a case where the news report concerns facts being investigated by an investigative agency, there is no way to confirm the truth of the alleged facts reported, and there is a tendency to accept the news report as truth with the authority and trust of the news report, and even with the broad and rapid spread of the news report, such news report alone does not ask for whether the news report is true or not, and if such news report causes serious damage to another person or its neighboring person, it should be determined based on the overall appearance of the news report that the news report should support the truth of the alleged facts, and if the news report contains 20 or more different news reports, it should be determined that the news report should be made within 70 or more times the news report should be made with the overall purport of the news report as 20 or news report.

Even in a case where a media, such as a newspaper, etc., injures a person’s reputation by pointing out a fact, if it is solely for the public interest, it shall be deemed that the actor believed the alleged fact to be true even if there is no proof that the alleged fact was true or there is considerable reason to believe it. However, the burden of proof on such act is limited to the media such as a newspaper that has engaged in defamation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da29379, Dec. 27, 2007). Whether there is considerable reason to believe the content of the report as true or not shall be determined in light of the following various circumstances: (a) the content of the alleged fact; (b) the evidence believed to be true or reliable; (c) the degree of damage to the victim caused by the news; and (d) whether the actor conducted an adequate and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the report; and (d) the authenticity thereof shall be supported by objective and reasonable materials or evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da108, etc.).

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant article that defames the Plaintiff was true, or that there was considerable reason to believe the content of the instant article was true. Examining the foregoing legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on determining illegality in defamation caused by a press report, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, without exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. 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 Park Jung-hwa

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Kim Gin-soo