[1] The grounds for rejecting illegality in a case where a person defames another person, and the criteria for determining whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alleged facts are true

[2] The contents of freedom of religious expression and the standard for determining illegality of defamation by religious criticism

[3] The case holding that the act of publishing an advertisement with a content that is different from the doctrine of a specific church and a pastor belonging thereto and preparing and distributing the same report, etc. is not unlawful as an expression act of religious criticism

[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 20(1) and 21(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 20(1) and 21(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da58823 decided Jan. 24, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 355), Supreme Court Decision 2008Da27769 decided Feb. 26, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 373) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da19246, 19253 decided Sept. 6, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2983), Supreme Court Decision 2006Da87903 decided Apr. 26, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 772)

Korea Minhyeong-ro Association and one other (Law Firm Kim & Lee, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 18 others (Law Firm Barun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na57949 decided September 25, 2008

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All appeals by the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Where a person commits an act which defames another person’s reputation and is solely for the public interest, if the alleged fact is proved to be true, the act shall not be deemed unlawful if it is proved to be true, and even if it is not proven to be true, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the fact to be true, it shall be deemed that the actor is not unlawful. Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the fact alleged to be true or not shall be determined in light of the following: (a) whether the actor has conducted an adequate and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the contents thereof, by taking into account various circumstances, such as the contents of the alleged fact, the basis and reliability of the material believed to be true, the easiness of confirmation of the fact, the degree of damage to the victim due to the timely statement, etc.; and (b) whether the actor has conducted an adequate and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the contents thereof, and (c) whether the truth is supported by objective and reasonable materials or grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da58823, Jan.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and found that the part of the plaintiffs' reports, non-statements and materials and publications was included in the following contents: ① The plaintiffs'

Examining the above legal principles in light of the records, we affirm all the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the rules of evidence or the violation of logical rules as to "whether there is a considerable reason to believe that it is a truth-finding" as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

Article 20(1) of the Constitution provides that “All citizens shall enjoy freedom of religion.” The freedom of religion includes the freedom of mission to publicize a religion they believe and to identify new believers. Freedom of mission includes the freedom to criticize other religions or to recommend religious believerss. While freedom of mission is also subject to protection of freedom of expression at the same time, criticism of religious propaganda and other religions is also subject to protection of freedom of expression. However, Article 20(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea on Freedom of religion has the nature of special provisions regarding freedom of expression Article 21(1) of the Constitution on Freedom of religion. In this case, media and publication for religious purposes are highly guaranteed compared to other media and publication. In particular, the purpose of the press and publication is to criticize new believers belonging to the same religious or religious group, which is a debate about religious doctrine of different religious groups, the freedom of mission includes the freedom to recommend other religious believers or religious believerss to open to the public. In addition, if there is criticism that it infringes on other people’s reputation and freedom of expression, such as how to protect such interests and interests.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below is just in holding that the Defendants’ act of distributing the above report to the students of the new school who are to become the next pastors and distributing the above report and the above criticism at the assembly of the joint church with their own interest should be protected by the freedom of learning and the freedom of professor even though they merely stated facts difficult to conclude as true, somewhat exaggerated and inappropriate expressions, and including the contents that infringe on the reputation of the Plaintiffs, which constitutes an act of expression of religious criticism that should be guaranteed to the maximum extent as its fundamental contents. The Defendants prepared and distributed the report and the letter of report in this case for the purpose of verifying the identity of the plaintiffs who are going to join the religious order, and thus, it is not unlawful in light of its purpose and purport. In addition, the Defendants’ act of distributing the above report and the letter of criticism at the assembly of the joint church with their own interest as a believerss, as they are alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the Defendants’ act of preparing and distributing the instant report and the visa did not constitute an expressive act of religious criticism, the court below determined that ① the Defendants posted the instant advertisement without referring to materials such as the content of novels, etc. conducted by Plaintiffs 2 and the Plaintiff church members at the time of posting the instant advertisement, and without referring to the materials such as the contents of novels, etc. conducted by the Plaintiff 2 and the Plaintiff church members at the time of publishing the instant advertisement, and ② the Defendants posted the instant advertisement on the so-called reading newspapers that the unspecified majority of the Plaintiffs wanted. ② From August 31, 2005, the Defendants prepared and distributed the research results against the Plaintiffs as the instant report, and it was difficult to publicly notify the Plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs through the instant advertisement on June 8, 2005, which was approximately two months prior to the instant report, and ③ its point is difficult to view the Plaintiffs’ intention to join the joint church and to view it as unlawful within the scope of the Plaintiffs’ freedom to verify the Plaintiffs’ freedom of advertising or its contents.

B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

(1) The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

On February 18, 1994, the problem of Plaintiff 2’s separation of Plaintiff 2 was also the case of killing Nonparty 1.

(B) The General Assembly of the Dr. D. The 76th Session of the D. D. D. D., in 1991, the research report on Plaintiff 2 was adopted. The above report contains the following purport: (a) Plaintiff 2’s death caused with a sn.e., a sn.e., a sn.e., a sn.e., a sn., a sn.e., a sn.e., a sn., a sn.e., a sn.e., a sn., a sn.e., a sn.e., a sn., a sn.e., a sn.e., a sn., a sn.e., a sn., a sn.m.; and (b) a sn.s. s. s. s. s. s.

As a result, at the 71st session of the Korea Student Association (hereinafter “Joint School”) of 1986, Plaintiff 2 was commissioned to work for and studied in the Korea University New School (hereinafter “Joint School”) (hereinafter “Joint School”) and published the result thereof in the Korean original newspaper. The division group decided not to publish articles or advertisements in the affiliated organization of the religious order. The general meeting of the Joint School of 80th of 1995 decided not to entrust the investigation of Nonparty 2 (former Plaintiff church members) with the inspection committee. On May 197, 199, the general meeting of the Joint School of 81th of 196 resolved to publish a collection and writing plan that specifies Plaintiff 2, etc. as a non-group or a non-organization organization, and specified the plan to publish the case of Plaintiff 2, etc. as one of the representative groups of the Korea church in accordance with the above resolution.

C. The written reply by Plaintiff 2 to the joint meeting on October 1983 is written as follows: “The reply to the statement of the general meeting is written.” On December 12, 1963, in relation to the question about the winning price of the speech, Plaintiff 2 stated as follows: “The winning price of the speech does not use it in a way that it goes against the common doctrine,” and Plaintiff 2’s sexual intercourse with Nonparty 3’s sexual intercourse as to whether it is not related to the principle of the common sense.”

Since 202, the plaintiffs decided to promote the joining of the joint church from the 2002, and came to know of such intent to the Western Labor Association belonging to the joint church, and the Northwest Labor Association organized the "Special Committee for Verifying the fact of joining the ordinary compulsory church of the Western Labor Association" (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Committee"). From the beginning of 2005, there was active debate on the pros and cons within the joint church of the plaintiff church where the recognition of joining the joint church of the plaintiff church is known.

㉳ 2005. 5. 24. 신대원 교수회에서 원고 2의 이단성을 연구하기로 결정하고 연구위원회를 구성하였고, 같은 해 6. 7. 하계 교수 세미나에서 연구위원회가 작성한 연구보고서를 제출받고 원고 2가 이단성이 있다는 성명서를 기독신문에 게재하기로 결정하였고, 같은 달 8일 이 사건 광고를 게재하였고, 그 후 신대원 교수회에서 3차례에 걸쳐 연구보고서를 추가 검토한 후 2005. 8. 31. 이 사건 보고서를 최종적으로 확정하고, 2005. 9. 12. 신대원 교수 일동 명의로 작성된 이 사건 보고서를 신대원 학생들에게 배포하였다.

㉴ 특별위원회는 원고들의 교리에 이단성이 없다고 판단하고 2005. 6. 21. 임시노회를 개최하여 원고 교회의 서북노회 가입 안건을 통과시키고, 2005. 7. 10. 특별위원회 명의로 ‘평강제일교회 원고 2 원로목사의 이단성 여부에 관한 보고서’를 발표하였고, 2005. 9. 26. ‘총신교수회 연구보고서에 대한 반론’이라는 보고서를 작성하여 공개하였으며, 이에 피고들은 합동교단 총회가 진행 중이던 2005. 9. 28. 이 사건 비판서를 작성하여 위 총회에 참석 중이던 대의원 등에게 배포하였다.

㉵ 피고들은 이 사건 보고서 등을 작성함에 있어 〈씨앗속임〉 설교 녹취록, 〈말씀의 승리가〉, 〈The Step to the Word〉, 〈총회질의서에 대한 답변서〉, 〈월경하는 여인의 입장에서 탈출하자〉, 〈말씀이 인격화한 사람〉, 〈왜 아담을 흙으로 창조했나〉, 〈가인의 소속과 가인은 누구의 씨인가?〉, 〈헵씨바〉, 〈대성〉, 〈평강의 소식〉, 〈참평안〉 등 원고들이 작성한 책자 등과 그 밖에 원고들의 이단성에 관한 수십 편의 논문 등을 검토하였는데, 원고 2 및 원고 교회 소속 목사의 최근 설교 내용은 참고하지 않은 것으로 보인다.

㉶ 기독신문사는 합동교단 유지재단 산하 기관이고, 2005. 6. 기준으로 기독신문의 주된 구독자는 교단 산하 목사와 장로이고 교단 내 배포가 99% 이상이며, 2005. 6. 8.자 기독신문 광고문은 인터넷에 게재되지 않았고, 현재도 기독신문은 인터넷에 광고를 게재하지 않고 있다.

㉷ 합동교단은 2005. 9. 27.부터 같은 달 31일까지 대전중앙교회에서 원고 교회의 합동교단 가입승인 문제 등을 안건으로 하는 임시총회를 개최하였는데, 위 임시총회에서 피고들의 원고 2에 대한 연구 결과를 합동교단의 공식 입장으로 수용하고 원고 교회의 서북노회 가입을 철회하도록 하는 내용의 결의가 이루어졌다.

(2) 위와 같은 사실관계에 의하여 알 수 있는 사정들 즉, ㉠ 피고들이 원고 2 및 원고 교회 소속 목사의 최근 설교 내용을 참조하지 않았고, 이 사건 광고 등의 게재·배포 당시 합동교단 내에서 원고들의 이단성 검증 절차가 진행 중이었던 사정에 있어서는 이 사건 광고 게재행위와 이 사건 보고서·비판서의 작성·배포행위 사이에 차이가 없는 점, ㉡ 합동교단 내에 이미 원고 2의 이단성에 관한 검토 자료가 상당히 축적되어 있었고, 2005. 5. 24. 신대원 교수회에서 연구위원회를 구성하고 2005. 6. 7. 세미나에서 연구위원회의 연구보고서를 제출받아 검토 후 이 사건 광고를 게재하기로 결정하였고, 그로부터 약 2개월 후에 완성된 이 사건 보고서와 위 광고의 주요 내용에 있어서 별다른 차이가 없는바, 피고들이 제대로 연구·검토를 하지 않은 채 성급하게 이 사건 광고를 게재한 것으로는 보이지 않는 점, ㉢ 기독신문의 99% 이상이 교단 내에 배포되므로 불특정 다수의 일반인이 구독하고 있다고 볼 수 없는바, 비록 이 사건 광고의 배포 범위가 이 사건 보고서·비판서보다는 넓다고 하더라도 그러한 사유만으로 양자의 위법성을 달리 보기는 어려운 점, ㉣ 피고들은 원고들의 설교, 발표문, 그 밖의 여러 논문들을 충분히 참조한 것으로 보이고, 교단 내에서 이단성 검증 절차가 진행된다는 사정만으로 종전에 허용되던 종교 비판의 자유의 한계가 갑자기 제한되는 것은 아닌 점, ㉤ 서북노회에서 원고들을 옹호하면서 합동교단 가입을 강력하게 추진하는 상황이었으므로, 이에 반대하는 피고들로서는 적극적인 이단 논쟁을 제기할 필요가 있었고, 실제로 그 후 합동교단 총회에서 피고들의 연구 결과를 공식 입장으로 수용한 점 등을 종합하면, 피고들의 이 사건 광고 게재행위의 위법성에 관하여 이 사건 보고서·비판서 작성·배포행위의 위법성과 달리 볼 합리적인 이유가 없고, 피고들의 지위, 비판행위로 얻어지는 이익, 가치와 공표가 이루어진 범위의 광협, 그 표현방법 등 그 비판행위 자체에 관한 제반 사정과 그 비판에 의하여 훼손되거나 훼손될 수 있는 원고들의 명예 침해의 정도 등에 비추어 비록 그 표현에 다소 과장되고 부적절한 표현을 사용한 점이 있다 하더라도 이 사건 보고서·비판서의 작성·배포행위가 종교적 표현행위로서 위법성이 없다고 본 것과 동일한 이유에서 피고들의 이 사건 광고 게재행위 역시 위법성이 없다고 봄이 상당하다고 할 것이다.

(3) Nevertheless, the court below determined that the act of publishing and distributing the instant advertisement constitutes an unlawful act beyond the limit of freedom of religion permitted by the Constitution, unlike the act of publishing and distributing the instant report and report. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to illegality of expressive act of religious criticism, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The defendants' assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiffs' appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)