Plaintiff (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Jin-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Chang-jin Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Gahap518 Decided February 17, 2010

July 21, 2010

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. After this judgment became final and conclusive, the Defendant first published a correction report as indicated in the attached Form 1 in the form of No. 12 of the term “creation and the letter of criticism”) which the Defendant first issued by the Defendant, in the same size as that of the flag adviser’s title and main text of the corrective report, and published the indication of the said correction report in the form of the next part of the above book.

B. In the event that the Defendant did not perform the obligations of the above Paragraph (a) above, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by applying the ratio of KRW 20,000,000 to three months from the day following the date of issuance of the above publication to the date of completion of the performance of the obligations.

C. The Defendant shall pay 5,00,000 won to the co-defendants of the first instance trial and each Plaintiff and 20% interest rate per annum from February 17, 2010 to the day of full payment.

D. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. One-half of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

3. The preceding paragraph (c) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

After the delivery of this judgment, the Defendant shall publish the request for the report of correction stated in the attached Form 2 in the pages 2 through 3 of the Creation and the Non-Lifeonon> “Creation” in the attached Forms 2 through 3 of the attached Table 2 in the size of the fonts, and the content in the form of two pages in the size of the fonts. If the Defendant fails to perform the above matters, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 50 million from the date of the first publication of the book issued after the judgment became final and conclusive to the date of the fulfillment of the above obligation. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the date of this judgment (the Plaintiff’s claim was reduced in the court of first instance) to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff’s claim was reduced in the court of first instance) to the day of the final and conclusive judgment (the amount of KRW 20 million).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of additional payment shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15 million won and 20% interest per annum from the time the appellate court rendered a judgment to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a member of the 18th National Assembly belonging to the ○○○○ Party, and the defendant is a company that issues

B. On the bulletin board of the Internet portal website, the Plaintiff posted a letter criticizeing the Plaintiff’s personal effects on the title “the Plaintiff’s history of distribution”. On May 28, 2008, other NAE PP that uses the conversation called “SM” on the Internet portal website website. On May 28, 2008, “I reported to the Cyber Police. I reported the above conversation name “SM.” The Plaintiff was connected with the Plaintiff’s campaign. The Plaintiff’s suspicion was raised among the NAE PP, “I would have employed the Plaintiff, not sending the above comments.” The Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff part of the Plaintiff’s support money under the pretext of 18 won “(h)” (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff’s support money”) as part of the support money to the Plaintiff.

C. On the other hand, in the case of the Internet portal site, after the other Internet portal site, the Latra using the conversation name "Saum" was satis, the Natra puts down a set of satiss and malicious comments with the content of satis satising the political power of the labor union or an inventive idea (hereinafter the above Natis saton), and the case of comments, the Plaintiff was widely known that the Plaintiff uses the conversation name "Satma" between the Natra and the Natis satis.

D. Accordingly, on May 29, 2008, the Plaintiff was an employee of the Plaintiff’s office, but the Plaintiff deleted comments as an employee of the Plaintiff’s office. However, the Plaintiff’s official website stated that “Isra’s Switzerland” is irrelevant to the Plaintiff, and posted the Plaintiff’s official website as an official announcement.

E. However, the co-defendant of the first instance court, who has frequently written his writing in the name of "Amanra" in the name of "Amanra", was written to the Defendant, with the title "Amanra". The above advisor, under the title of "Nos. 1 and 2, he knows that "Amanra" in the space of communication or the role of "Imanra" in the form of public opinion among the Neman Ponas, together with the author's opinion as to the above comments, as shown in attached Table 3, he sent the comments to "Dave (the comments in question in this case)" in relation to the above comments, as shown in attached Table 3, he was Ray Pon who uses the name of "Neman", but the co-defendant of the first instance court stated his wrong conversation in his name," and the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff's statement was 8 "Monra" in the name of "Monra" and "Mon Ponra" in 2008.

F. The Defendant published the instant flag adviser in not more than 94 pages Ga (hereinafter “instant journal”) of 2008

G. Around that time, the Plaintiff’s complaint and the Plaintiff’s complaint led to the investigation of the Plaintiff on the NAE PP, which spreaded the Plaintiff’s novel on the Internet. In the course of the investigation and trial, it was revealed that “Ara’s syna” was not the same person as the Plaintiff, and it was found guilty of the fact that the said NAE violated the Plaintiff’s reputation by pointing out false facts against the said NAEN.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Evidence No. 4-1 through 6, Evidence No. 8, 9, Evidence No. 12-1, 2, Evidence No. 24-1, 2, Gap No. 25, and 26, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Obligations to make corrective reports:

A. General theory

Article 14(1) of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports provides that “Any person who suffers damage due to a failure of truth in a press report on a factual assertion may file a claim with a press organization for a corrective report on the content of the press report within three months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the existence of the press report.” Thus, in order to file a claim for a corrective report pursuant to the above Act, the relevant press report must be deemed to be false as it concerns factual assertion. Here, the authenticity of a press report is a fact that is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the contents of the report, and even if there is a little difference or somewhat exaggerated expression in the detailed facts in the process of making it easy to understand complicated facts, it shall be deemed that the authenticity of the report is recognized if the important contents of the report are consistent with the truth in light of the overall context (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27575, Sept. 6, 2007).

B. Although the part 1 of the instant case includes a little of investigative exaggerations (the part where he/she traces IP addresses) and a part that differs from the truth in detail (the part where he/she misleads as "love") but the entire purport of the content is consistent with objective facts. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for a corrective statement on this part is without merit.

C. According to the above facts, the second part of this case constitutes false facts, and thereby, it is recognized that the plaintiff's reputation was damaged. Thus, the defendant is obligated to make a corrective report on this point (in light of its contents, it cannot be deemed that it is merely related to the fact that the influence on the plaintiff's reputation or the matters for a corrective report on the plaintiff's reputation or the matters for a corrective report on the plaintiff's reputation

Furthermore, taking into account the contents and quantity of the pertinent part among the advisers of this case, the method of expression thereof, damage inflicted on the Plaintiff, the contents and method of a report on a correction sought by the Plaintiff, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, the contents and contents of the correction report, the method of publication, such as the contents of the correction report, the number of pages of the publication thereof, and the size thereof, and the amount of indirect compulsory performance money, etc. shall be determined and ordered as stated in

3. Liability to compensate for losses;

A. Whether defamation is defamation

In full view of the above facts and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was false, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s contents were false before the distribution of the publication of this case, and the Plaintiff requested correction of the contents thereof (Evidence A 1 to 12, A8, and 9), the Defendant damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation by publishing the reporters containing the first and second parts of the instant broadcast page in the instant broadcast page, thereby impairing the social evaluation of the Plaintiff.

B. Determination on the grounds for the exclusion of illegality

(1) The defendant's assertion

As to this, the defendant asserts that the term adviser of this case is related to the morality and qualities of the plaintiff as a public official, and the part 1 of this case is consistent with the truth, and even if the part 2 of this case is false, the defendant asserts that it is not unlawful since there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is true.

(2) Determination

(A) General theory

Even in a case where a media, such as a broadcast, infringes on another person’s reputation by pointing out a fact, if the purpose of the media is solely for the public interest, it shall be deemed that there is no illegality if the fact is true or if there is a considerable reason to believe that it is true. In this context, the term “when the purpose is solely for the public interest” means when the stated fact concerns the public interest, and the perpetrator also expresses the fact for the public interest. If the principal purpose or motive of the actor is for the public interest, if the principal purpose or motive of the actor is included for the public interest, it shall be unlimited even if there is an incidental private interest purpose or motive, and in this context, the term “actual fact” means a fact that is consistent with objective facts when examining the overall purport of the content, and even if there is a little or somewhat exaggerated expression, it shall be unreasonable to say that there is a little difference from the truth or that there is a little exaggeration in the contents. In setting the limitation between the freedom of the press and the protection of its reputation, it shall not be subject to 200 or more restrictive on the press issue.

(b)public interest;

The first and second parts of the instant case are related to public interests, such as qualities and behaviors as the Plaintiff’s official seal, and unfair interference with the formation of public opinion in cyber spaces, and their purpose is recognized to be for public interest.

(c)the authenticity or reasonableness;

1) Since the part 1 of the instant case is deemed to be in conformity with objective facts in its overall purport, the Defendant’s assertion that there is no illegality of defamation thereby is reasonable.

2) Since the second part of the instant case is false, we examine whether the Defendant had a reasonable ground to believe that the content was true.

The defendant asserts that the "Isra's sarday" was no more than 18th election period, and that the plaintiff had a positive opinion on political activities or publicity activities through ordinary internet, that there was an article on the non-party who was different from the plaintiff in the so-called "1980 Seoul Military Incident", and that there was an article on the non-party who was different from the plaintiff in the so-called "1980 military case," that the comments on the issue as the opportunity for the comments case were posted during the new wall time, and that the plaintiff was suspected to directly conclude the above comments. The plaintiff argued that there was no timely use of the 18th election period of the National Assembly member, but the above argument was false, and that there was no reason for the plaintiff's request that the non-party to whom the plaintiff belongs to the political party of this case would not be jointly engaged in the press report of this case, and that the plaintiff's request that the non-party to whom the plaintiff belongs would not be jointly engaged in the press report of this case and that the plaintiff would not be jointly engaged in the press report of this case.

The above grounds presented by the Defendant are not practical investigation to confirm the authenticity of the second part of this case, but circumstantial grounds or directly related to the authenticity or authenticity of the second part of this case. Furthermore, it is possible to use multiple persons on the Internet (Evidence A 14). From the day immediately after the Plaintiff’s comments, he was able to use multiple ways that he is unrelated to “Ara’s sary”, and he was in the process of investigation by communicating the Defendant even before the distribution of the second part of this case, and thus, during the investigation, he requested the police officer in charge to confirm the facts through the police officer in charge (Evidence A 3-1 through 12, A8,9). Considering that the publication of this case and the nature of the advisory adviser of this case were officially recognized and there were no circumstances to deem that prompt disclosure of this to the general public is requested, even if the Plaintiff asserted that the second part of this case is a member of the National Assembly, it is not sufficient to establish objective and reasonable evidence or sufficient evidence to believe that the Defendant was a member of the National Assembly.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the second part of this case is not illegal because there is a considerable reason to believe that the second part of this case is true, is not illegal.

(D) Sub-committee

The defendant is obligated to compensate for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff, since he illegally damaged the plaintiff's reputation by pointing out the facts stated in the second part of this case.

C. Amount of consolation money

Furthermore, with respect to the specific amount of damages, consolation money against the plaintiff shall be set at five million won in consideration of health class, degree of defamation, degree of defendant's effort for confirmation of facts, expertise of the press adviser of this case, weight of the part at issue in the press adviser of this case, and other factors such as the plaintiff's social status and the defendant's personal guidance as the periodical business operator.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from February 17, 2010 to the date of full payment, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, to the date of full payment, according to the plaintiff's claim against the co-defendant of the first instance trial and the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance which has a different conclusion is unfair, part of the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the part against the defendant in the judgment of first instance is modified as ordered.

[Attachment]

Judges Jins and decorations (Presiding Judge)