[1] The standards for determining whether or not there exists "reasonable reasons to believe that the pertinent contents are true", which is the grounds for excluding illegality in defamation

[2] Whether a reasonable ground exists to believe that the alleged content is true in a case where a statement of fact that could undermine the social reputation of another person was made without investigation or confirmation of facts, based on the disclosed information obtained free of charge on the Internet (negative)

[1] In establishing civil defamation, it is objectively deemed that there is an awareness that the victim’s external and social reputation is likely to be undermined, and its content is false. However, it is not necessary to actively recognize that the statement is false. However, if the statement concerns public interests and its purpose solely is for the public interest, illegality is excluded unless there is a reasonable ground to believe that the statement is true, even if there is no proof that it is true. Thus, if there is a reasonable ground to believe the statement as true, it should be determined in light of the following circumstances: (a) whether there is a reasonable ground to believe the statement as true; (b) whether there was an appropriate and sufficient investigation to verify the authenticity of the statement; and (c) whether the statement is appropriate and sufficient to verify the truth thereof, in light of the fact that the statement is supported by objective and reasonable materials or grounds.

[2] The disclosure information obtained free of charge on the Internet can be easily reproduced, processed, posted, and transmitted by anyone, and it is difficult to identify the authenticity of the content thereof as well as its ultimate source. If the material posted and stored in the data room or bulletin board of a virtual community connected by people interested in a specific issue was based on the material, and if a statement of fact that may undermine another person’s social reputation without any investigation or confirmation of facts was made, it is difficult to deem that the actor believed the content thereof to have a reasonable ground to believe that it was true.

[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Da29 decided Oct. 11, 1988 (Gong1988, 1392), Supreme Court Decision 96Da36395 decided May 8, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1572), Supreme Court Decision 98Da24624 decided Oct. 27, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2766), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da10208 decided Jan. 19, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 497)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na1863 delivered on November 6, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

In establishing civil defamation, it is objectively deemed that there is a perception that the victim’s external and social reputation may be undermined, and its content is false. However, it is not necessary to actively recognize that the statement is false. However, in a case where the statement concerns the public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, the illegality where the actor has reasonable grounds to believe that the statement is true, even if there is no proof of true fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Meu29, Oct. 11, 1988). Thus, whether there is any reasonable ground to believe that the statement is true should be determined in light of the following: (a) the nature of the fact; (b) the credibility of the information sources; (c) the easiness of confirming the fact; and (d) the degree of damage to the victim caused by the statement of fact; and (d) whether the statement is appropriate and sufficient to verify the truth thereof, and its authenticity is supported by objective and reasonable materials or grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da395636, May 8, 8, 1998).

In particular, the disclosure information obtained free of charge on the Internet can be easily reproduced, processed, posted, and transmitted by anyone, and it is difficult to identify the authenticity of the content, as well as its ultimate source, and if the data posted and stored in the data room or bulletin board of a virtual community connected by people interested in a specific issue are reported, and if there was a statement of fact that may undermine other people’s social reputation without any investigation or confirmation of facts, it is difficult to deem that the domestic actor believed the content thereof as true.

The court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment after compiling the adopted evidence and found the facts of the judgment. The whole purport of this writing written by the defendant on the Internet bulletin board is as follows: the plaintiffs are a non-defense force or a specialized fraud organization with a hinterlands, which is a non-defense force or a specialized fraud organization with a hinterlands and imposes a punishment for committing fraud using the non-party company through a close public offering and division, and a new company is established and another company is charged with committing another fraud. It is difficult to regard the facts as truth because the plaintiffs stated new facts beyond the mere exaggeration of the fact that they acquired money through the public offering of the Internet, and as long as the defendant written the Internet bulletin based on the Internet bulletin posted by others, it is difficult to view that there is a reasonable reason to believe that its contents is true. This decision of the court below is just in light of the above legal principles or the records of this case, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment due to misconception of facts, contradiction in the reasoning, or misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements for the establishment of defamation, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)