[1] Whether a court may determine the content, location, method, etc. of a corrective report in a trial on a request for a corrective statement (affirmative); and whether the court may appropriately modify and cite the corrective report in a case where the corrective statement sought by the petitioner contains any part exceeding the limit or permissible scope (affirmative)

[2] The case where an act of publishing an adviser who criticizes public officials in a magazine constitutes defamation

[3] Whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that the content thereof is true in a case where an adviser posted and stored materials based on data posted and stored in a data room or bulletin board of the virtual community on the Internet without any investigation or confirmation of facts (negative)

[1] Considering the purport and content of Article 15(5) and (6) of the former Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (amended by Act No. 10587, Apr. 14, 201); and the so-called inorganic, etc. that should be applied in a trial on a request for a corrective statement, the court may determine the content, location, and method of the corrective report so as to allow appropriate counter-performance in accordance with the relevant case. If the corrective report sought by the applicant contains any part beyond the limit or permissible scope of the content, the court may appropriately modify and accept the corrective report to the extent that does not go against the overall purport of the corrective report sought by

[2] In a case where a reporter is placed in a magazine with a relatively short demand for swiftness as an expression of personal character in comparison with a newspaper, he/she is required to undergo sufficient investigation activities as to whether the content of the article is true or not. Furthermore, when determining the contents and method of expression of the reporter, the contents and public interest of suspicions, the degree of undermining the social evaluation of the public official or the public service society, the degree of effort to confirm facts up to the publication of the adviser, the degree of effort to confirm facts up to the publication of the adviser, and other surrounding circumstances, in a case where the publication of the adviser is deemed to have considerably lost reasonableness as a malicious or extremely rush attack beyond the scope of legitimate press activities such as surveillance, criticism, and check against the public official or the public service society, even if it was derived from the intention of surveillance, criticism, and check against the public official or the public service society, it cannot be deemed as defamation beyond the scope of the public official, etc.

[3] Even in a case where an act of impairing a person’s reputation is committed, if it is a matter of public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, if it is proved to be true, such act shall not be deemed unlawful, and if there is considerable reason to believe that the actor is true even if there is no proof, it shall be deemed unlawful. However, the disclosure information obtained free of charge on the Internet may be easily reproduced, processed, posted, and transmitted by anyone, and its authenticity is unclear, and its sources are difficult to be specified, and it is difficult to identify its sources. Thus, if an act of impairing a person’s reputation was published as an adviser indicating a fact that may undermine another person’s social reputation without examining or confirming facts, it is difficult to view that the actor believed the content thereof, even if the actor believed the truth.

[1] Article 15(5) and (6) of the former Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (Amended by Act No. 10587, Apr. 14, 201) / [2] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Article 310 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the former Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (Amended by Act No. 10587, Apr. 14, 2011)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da37278 delivered on December 23, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 489) Supreme Court Decision 99Da63138 delivered on March 24, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1045) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 85Da29 delivered on October 11, 198 (Gong198, 1392) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35199 Delivered on May 12, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 1020) (Gong207Da29379 delivered on December 27, 2007) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2008Da52749 delivered on April 26, 2008 (Gong2078, 207Sang, 207Da127784, May 27, 2004)

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)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na34892 decided December 1, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. In light of the purport and content of Articles 15(5) and 15(6) of the former Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (amended by Act No. 10587, Apr. 14, 201); and the so-called inorganic system, etc. to be applied in a trial on a request for a corrective statement, the court may determine the content, location, and method of the corrective statement so that the corrective statement can have an appropriate effect on a case-by-case basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da37278, Dec. 23, 1996). If the corrective statement that the petitioner seeks contains any part that deviates from the limitations or permitted scope on the contents, the court may appropriately amend and refer the corrective report to the extent that does not go against the overall purport of the corrective report sought by the petitioner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da63138, Mar. 24,

B. According to the records, the plaintiff filed a request for the correction of this case by inserting it on the 2-3 pages of the defendant's magazine, and did not request the correction report to be inserted in the 12th page of the defendant's magazine, and the defendant's magazine 2-3 pages are ordinarily placed, and the first instance court ordered the 12th page of the front page of the publication of the correction report to indicate that the correction report has been made. The court below excluded the part which had to be indicated on the mark from the mark, and the mark was also marked on the sign in the 6th page of the decision of the court below without stating the title of "Madle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle dle." or " dle dle dle dle.".

C. Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below did not have any illegality in determining the location of the publication of a correction report in 12 pages, and there is no illegality in ordering the publication of the publication report only once. Moreover, since the above convicting part is nothing more than that of the adviser itself of this case, and it is not appropriate to include it in the correction report since it is not related to other factual arguments contained therein, it is more inappropriate to include it in the correction report. Therefore, the court below's decision is justified except

In addition, the court below was just to order the publication of a correction report as an appropriate measure for the restoration of the plaintiff's reputation and its size, method and content as stated in its reasoning, taking into account the following circumstances: "The part of the issue of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "the part of this case") stating that "the plaintiff raised 846 articles on Agora in the name of "Mara" on May 2008, under the name of "Mara" as the result of the tracking of "Mara", which is at issue among the advisor of this case (hereinafter referred to as "Mara") and the content, quantity, and method of expression, the damage suffered by the plaintiff, the contents and method of the correction report sought by the plaintiff, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument of this case. There is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the correction report, as

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. In setting the limitation between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, if the expressed contents relate to matters of public and social meaning, unlike cases belonging to private domains, restriction on the freedom of press should be mitigated. In particular, in light of the fact that public officials’ morality, integrity, and work process are duly performed, it should always be subject to citizen surveillance and criticism, such monitoring and criticism function should not be easily restricted unless it is malicious or considerably unreasonable attack (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da37647, Jan. 24, 2003; 202Da63558, Sept. 2, 2003; 2002Da6358, Sept. 2, 2003; 2002Da6358, Sept. 1, 2003). However, in posting advisory opinions to criticize public officials by expressing personal character in a less swift demand compared to newspapers, it is difficult to determine whether it is true or not, to the extent that it goes beyond the scope of public official’s observation and evaluation of society.

B. Meanwhile, even in a case where an act of impairing a person’s reputation under a civil law is committed, if it is a matter of public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, there is no evidence that it is true, and even if there is no such proof, if the actor has a reasonable ground to believe that it is true, it shall be deemed unlawful. However, the disclosed information obtained free of charge on the Internet can be easily reproduced, processed, posted, and transmitted by anyone, and its authenticity and sources are unclear, and its sources are difficult to be specified. Thus, if an act of impairing a person’s reputation was published by a person interested in a specific matter without any investigation or confirmation of facts, it is difficult to view that the actor believed the content thereof as true, and there is a reasonable ground to believe it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da53214, Apr. 24, 2008).

C. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion of illegality in the news report of this case, based on the following facts: (a) the grounds presented by the Defendant that the key part of this case was believed to be true or irrelevant to the authenticity of the key part of this case; or (b) the circumstantial grounds that they were merely unrelated to the authenticity of the key part of this case; (c) the fact that many people are allowed to use the same conversation on the Internet; and (d) the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to verify facts through multiple channels before the distribution of the key part of this case, and notified the Defendant of the phone number of the police officer in charge of this case; and (c) the Defendant did not take any measures to verify the authenticity of the key part of this case; and (d) the Defendant did not have any circumstances to deem that the disclosure is requested to be made promptly in light of the nature of the key part of this case or the advisory body of this case; and (e) the news report of this case was about the public interest issue of the Plaintiff, a member of the National Assembly.

D. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment by the court below are just, and there are no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles as to the denial of illegality of defamation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)