[1] The standard for determining whether the expression of the press, such as a newspaper, is a statement of fact or a simple expression of opinion

[2] The grounds for rejecting illegality and the criteria for determining whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the expression is true in a case where a person defames another person by pointing out a fact through the press and the publication

[3] The point of time of determining whether a person who defames another person by pointing out a fact through the press and the publication has a reasonable ground to believe that the content of the expression is true and the scope of evidentiary materials

[4] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that recognized liability for damages against the above media company, even though the media company that issued the above newspaper seems to have a considerable reason to believe that the above expression was true, since there was an expression of false information about an outside author's adviser's externally in the disturbance of the newspaper's news report, which affected another person's reputation by pointing out false facts

[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [4] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Article 14 of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da58823 decided Jan. 24, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 355) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da31356 decided Feb. 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 458), Supreme Court Decision 98Do2188 decided Feb. 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 885), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da49040 decided Feb. 10, 2006 (Gong206Sang, 393) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35199 decided May 12, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 109Sang, 209Da3697379 decided Feb. 29, 2009)

[Judgment of the court below]

Cho Il-il and one other (Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na66769 decided July 16, 2008

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. regarding the claim for damages shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. The appeal by Defendant 2 and the remaining appeal by Defendant Chosun Chosun Co., Ltd. shall be dismissed in entirety. The costs of appeal by

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Chosun”) are examined.

1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle as to factual validity

In a case where a certain expressive act of the press, such as a newspaper, becomes a problem in connection with defamation, whether the expression is a statement of fact or a mere expression of opinion, may be determined as a statement of fact that it is objectively verifiable, clear, and historical, and externally expressed the motive, purpose, psychological condition, etc. of another person subject to the report including the externally recognizable process or condition. However, such abstract criteria are not always clear. As such, it is not always clear in itself, in addition to the objective contents of the relevant article, the determination should be based on the ordinary meaning of words used in the article, the overall flow of the article, and the method of linking the phrases, etc. under the premise that the ordinary reader takes place with the ordinary reader’s care. Furthermore, the determination should be made based on the more broad context or background that the relevant article is published (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da31356, Feb. 9, 199; 200Do4298, Feb. 25, 2008; 2000Do4016, Apr. 200

Upon citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the fact that Defendant Chosun did not have the advisor of this case who was administered by Defendant 2 in the column for the trial of the Chosun Shipbuilding that he issued, and determined that, among the advisers of this case, the Plaintiff obstructed the Plaintiff’s social evaluation by stating that “I would have been done under his own name by a professor who did not contribute at all to publishing the outcome of the research survey. outside, the Plaintiff was not implementing the Plaintiff’s real name system while leaving the financial real name system. The professor is currently the president of the University University and University, and the professor is currently at the representative position of Sejong University.” (hereinafter “instant key expression”) stated that “I would have been done under his own name by suggesting that the Plaintiff, who did not contribute at all to the publication of the book of this case, would have been done under his own name.” The court below determined that the Plaintiff’s attitude as such was a moral compromise, thereby impeding the Plaintiff’s social evaluation.

In light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and therefore, we accept the plaintiff's request for a corrective statement. The ground of appeal on this issue is without merit.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality in defamation

However, the court below's decision that it is not reasonable to believe that the expression of this case in this case is true for the following reasons is a public interest nature as an article to the purport that the term advisor of this case needs to recover the morality of civic organization, and whether the plaintiff was marked as the author without contribution from the withdrawal of the book of this case, the representative of civic organization and the president of university or college, is about the public interest of the contents of the plaintiff's morality as a public figure.

Even in cases where an act of damaging another person’s reputation by publishing a fact through the press and the publication of the fact, if it is solely for the public interest, there is no illegality in such act, and if there is no proof that it is true fact, and if there is a considerable reason to believe it as true, it shall be deemed that there is no illegality. However, whether there is a considerable reason to believe the contents of the expression as true or not shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the contents of the alleged fact, the certainty and credibility of the evidence believed as true or materials, the degree of damage to the victim, etc., which are appropriate and sufficient to confirm the authenticity of the statement, and the authenticity thereof shall be determined in light of the fact that the actor is supported by objective and reasonable materials or basis (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da35199, May 12, 2006; 2005Da5823, Jan. 24, 2008; 2008Da98298, Feb. 29, 2009).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the following facts are revealed. The 19th National Federation of Economic well-being, which is a non-governmental organization to which the plaintiff and the defendant 2 belonged, (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul National Association"), rather than the 9th anniversary of the reform and criticism, and the 9th anniversary of the 19th anniversary of the 9th anniversary of the 9th 9th 19th 19th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 96th 96th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 9th 96th 196th 9th 9th 196th 9th 9th 9th 99.

Examining the aforementioned circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, such as controversy over the title of publication, the role and involvement degree of Defendant 2 performed by Defendant 2, the Defendant’s status as university professor at the time of the instant advisory act, and the Plaintiff’s entry and departure details at the time of the publication of the book book, etc., in the course of the publication of the book book of this case, it should be deemed that there was considerable reason to believe that the instant expression of issues was true.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality in defamation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant Shipbuilding as to the claim for damages among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. All of the remaining appeals by Defendant Shipbuilding and the appeal by Defendant 2 who did not submit the appellate brief within the statutory period are dismissed. The costs of appeal by Defendant 2 are assessed against the above Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)