2016Da23303 Compensation (as stated)

A person shall be appointed.

1. B

2. C

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2052860 Decided May 27, 2016

February 9, 2017

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if a certain article of the press damages the reputation of others, it is not illegal if it is "for the public interest only for its purpose" and its content is "for the public interest" or "for the reasonable reason to believe that it is true."

In this context, "the purpose of which is solely for the public interest" means that the alleged fact concerns the public interest from an objective point of view, and the offender also expresses the fact for the public interest. If the principal purpose or motive of the offender is for the public interest, it is unreasonable even if there are other private interest purposes or motives incidental thereto.

In addition, the meaning that the material fact is a fact that conforms to objective facts in light of the purport of the entire content, and even if there is a little or exaggerated expression that differs from the truth in detail. In addition, whether an actor has "reasonable reason to believe that the content of the article is true" should be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the content of the alleged fact, the grounds or materials believed to be true, the certainty and reliability of the material, the easiness of verifying the fact, the degree of damage to the victim caused by the article, etc., in order to verify the authenticity of the contents of the article, whether the actor has conducted adequate and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the contents of the article, and whether the authenticity is supported by objective and reasonable materials or grounds.

한편 언론 · 출판의 자유와 명예보호 사이의 한계 설정은 표현된 내용이 사적 관계에 관한 것인지 아니면 공공의 관계에 관한 것인지에 따라 차이가 있다. 해당 표현으로 인한 피해자가 공공적 존재인지 사적인 존재인지, 그 표현이 공공의 관심 사안에 관한 것인지 순수한 사적인 영역에 속하는 사안에 관한 것인지 등에 따라 그 심사기준에 차이를 두어, 공공적 · 사회적 의미가 있는 사안에 관한 표현의 경우에는 언론의 자유에 대한 제한이 완화되어야 한다. 특히 해당 표현이 언론사에 대한 것인 경우에는, 언론사가 타인에 대한 비판자로서 언론의 자유를 누리는 범위가 넓은 만큼 그에 대한 비판을 수인 ( 受忍 ) 하는 범위 역시 넓어야 한다. 언론사는 스스로 반박할 수 있는 매체를 가지고 있어서 이를 통하여 잘못된 정보로 인한 왜곡된 여론의 형성을 막을 수 있으며, 일방 언론사의 인격권 보장은 다른 한편 타방 언론사의 언론 자유를 제약하는 결과가 될 수 있다는 점을 감안하면, 언론사에 대한 감시와 비판 기능은 그것이 악의적이거나 현저히 상당성을 잃은 공격이 아닌 한 쉽게 제한되어서는 아니 된다 ( 대법원 2006. 3. 23 . 선고 2003다52142 판결 등 참조 ) .

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.

A. The Plaintiff is a current or former representative director of E (hereinafter “instant company”) a press company running online newspaper D, etc.

B. On November 13, 2014, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) published the article as indicated in the F’s title “F” written by Defendant C in the online newspaper “G” (hereinafter “instant article”).

C. (1) Meanwhile, the instant company and the representative of the instant company were serving in the same H (hereinafter “H”) and retired on September 15, 2014, and on the other hand, on the part of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency (hereinafter “Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency”) filed a petition for violating the Labor Standards Act with the representative of the instant company in violation of the Labor Standards Act.

(2) As to the above petition case, the Plaintiff was present at the Seoul Southern District Office of Employment and Labor, along with J, the present representative director of the instant company, and was investigated by the Plaintiff, and the Seoul Southern District Office of Employment and Labor, on October 14, 2014.

As a result of the investigation of a petition case filed against the plaintiff I, the labor contract related to Article 17 (Specifying Terms and Conditions of Employment) of the Labor Standards Act was not prepared and notified to the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office of notification of the result of handling the report case that sent the case to the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office (hereinafter referred to as "Notification of this case"). The main text of the notification of this case stated that "in the case of a delay in payment of money and valuables, even if the reported person is punished, the civil liability cannot be exempted, and therefore, it is stated that "it may file a civil lawsuit with the court after receiving a confirmation request for the delayed payment money and valuables from the Seoul Southern District Office of Employment and Labor".

(3) Meanwhile, on August 13, 2014, K retired while serving in the instant company and H, with I, filed a petition for violation of the Labor Standards Act with the Vice-Local Labor Agency, which was located in the Jungcheon District Office of Jungcheon District, and as a result, on September 29, 2014, the Jungcheon District Labor Agency of Jungcheon District, which filed a petition against K on the representative of H, issued a written notice of the result of handling the reported case, which sent the case to the Seocheon District Office of Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office as a result of prosecution, by verifying the labor condition under Article 17 (Specifying of the Labor Standards Act) of the Labor Standards Act, by examining the petition case filed against K on September 29, 2014. The said notice did not state any details concerning the payment of money and valuables, such as the instant notice.

D. After the receipt of the instant notice, the Plaintiff and J filed a petition for the payment of wages with Defendant C, and the Plaintiff was investigated by both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was sent to the prosecution due to the suspicion of failing to prepare an employment contract. The overdue portion of the wages for himself was currently being investigated at the Employment and Labor Office, and K’s overdue portion was under investigation at the Employment and Labor Office, and J was confirmed by the Labor Office, but J did not calculate the overdue portion, and at the time, the investigator did not strongly claim that the overdue portion was included in the wages and included the grounds under the instant notice.

E. Defendant C confirmed the contents of the above information, text messages, and each of the above notifications, and prepared the instant article.

3. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier and the evidence duly admitted, it is determined as follows.

A. (1) The title of the instant article is F.

The main text of this Act begins with the fact that the Plaintiff was aware of the violation of the Labor Standards Act as a result of the investigation conducted by the Korea Labor Agency in October 10, and it was confirmed that the case was sent to the prosecutor’s office. The Seoul Southern Site Office of Employment and Labor had been sent by the Plaintiff’s act by violating Article 17 of the Labor Standards Act (the provision of working conditions) and by the opinion of prosecution to the prosecutor, and notified the petitioner of the case. The contents of this provision are as follows: “In the event of suspicion, it is anticipated that a fine not exceeding five million won will be imposed pursuant to Article 114 of the Labor Standards Act.” The above contents specifically explain the fact that the suspicion sent by the Plaintiff is a violation of the working conditions, along with the relevant legal provisions and statutory punishment, and the quantity reaches about 30% of the entire text of the article. Meanwhile, under the title of the article of this case, the contents of the article of this case include the content of the labor contract as arrears.

However, the phrase alone is insufficient to view that the fact that the overdue payment of wages was a suspected charge sent by the prosecution. Unlike the title, the size of this part is much smaller than the size of the text, and is similar to the size of the text. The main text states in detail that the fact that the overdue payment of wages was not sent due to the charge of overdue payment of wages, and that it was sent due to the charge of violating the duty to specify working conditions.

(3) Therefore, the article of this case, upon examining the whole, can be deemed as having indicated that the Plaintiff’s specific suspicion was a violation of the working conditions specified in the indictment, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff stated the fact that the article of this case was sent to the prosecutor’s office on the charge of violating the Labor Standards Act, and that it was sent to the prosecutor’s office with the prosecution’s opinion on the delayed payment of wages

B. (1) Meanwhile, the main text of the instant article states that the Plaintiff confirmed the delayed payment of employee wages as a result of the investigation conducted by the Seoul Southern District Office of Employment and Labor (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Labor Agency”). However, Defendant C directly confirmed the content of the petition from the petitioner before preparing the instant article, and confirmed the content of the instant notice that the Seoul Southern District Office, which dealt with the instant case, entered the instant case’s processed results and notified I. The main text of the instant notice is without notice to K. The content of the instant notice is that there is no notice to K, and “In the event of the instant case of delayed payment of money and valuables, the reported person cannot be exempted from civil liability, and thus, it can be deemed that the said petition case constitutes a case of delayed payment of money and valuables.”

In addition, Defendant C made a statement to the effect that the investigator included the delayed payment of wages in the current investigation or verification, and that the investigator inserted the grounds under the notice of this case. Thus, it seems reasonable to accept the purport of Defendant C’s instruction on the follow-up procedure on the premise that the delayed payment of wages was not confirmed, regardless of the content of 1’s petition, rather than a notice tool uniformly stating the description under paragraph (3) of this case’s notification of this case’s notification of this case’s notification of this case’s notification of this case’s notification of this case’s notification of this case’s notification of this case’s notification of this case’s notification of this case’s notification of this case. (4) In full view of the above circumstances, the Defendants, as a result of the investigation conducted by the Seoul Southern District Office of Labor,

C. In addition, the Plaintiff is the representative director of a press organization, and the article of this case reported the true contents of the case and its processed result in violation of the Labor Standards Act by an employee of a press organization, who was the representative director, and its contents can be deemed to be for the public interest, as recognized by the lower court, as matters concerning the implementation of the public affairs that may cause public controversy regarding morality and compliance issues of journalists.

Therefore, as to the expression of the contents of the instant article, the restriction on the freedom of the press should not be mitigated, and it should not be easily restricted unless it is a malicious or considerably unreasonable attack. However, even if the contents of the instant article are examined as a whole, it is difficult to view them as a malicious or extremely rush attack.

D. Ultimately, considering the overall understanding of the contents of the title and the main text, the contents of the article of this case are solely for the public interest and its purpose is for the public interest, and its contents are true, or there is no reasonable ground for the Defendants to believe it as true.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants guilty on the ground that there was no reasonable ground to believe that the instant article was sent to the prosecutor’s office under the suspicion of overdue payment, and that the Defendants indicated the fact that the Plaintiff was indicted on the charge of overdue payment.

Therefore, in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds for defamation and the exclusion of illegality, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and 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 Kim So-young

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Jae-han

Justices Lee Dong-won