[1] The degree of identity of the victim as a requirement for the recognition of defamation caused by a broadcast report

[2] Criteria for recognizing the authenticity of a press report in relation to the requirements for a corrective report under Article 14(1) of the former Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports

[3] The grounds for the exclusion of illegality in defamation by the media and the meaning of "infinite facts" among the grounds therefor

[4] In a case where a creditor who has several damage claims different from the time of occurrence and the cause of occurrence, etc. for the same debtor files a lawsuit, whether the amount of the claim shall be specified for each damage claim (affirmative), and whether the court shall specify the amount of the award by each damage claim (affirmative)

[1] Article 30 of the former Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008), Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 14 (1) of the former Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008) / [3] Article 30 of the former Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008), Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 216 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Da50213 Decided May 10, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1336), Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35199 Decided May 12, 2006 (Gong2009Sang, 373) (Gong2009Sang, 373) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2275 Decided September 6, 2007 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37524, 37531 Decided January 22, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 522), Supreme Court Decision 2008Da527636 decided March 23, 2006 / [207Da2007846 decided March 26, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da527476 decided March 26, 2007

Plaintiff (Law Firm Woo, Attorneys Lee Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Yong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na80052 decided June 3, 2009

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In order to recognize defamation, the victim must be identified, and even if the article or image itself does not contain a person’s name and makes it difficult to recognize the victim’s identity, if it can be seen that the article or image is the victim, considering the surrounding circumstances, the victim is specified (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35199, May 12, 2006, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court of first instance, as cited by the court below, acknowledged the fact that the defendant dealt with the part of the "○○" among the cosmetic's signboards "○○" among the cosmetic's signboards of this case, and broadcasted the report without specifying the plaintiff's name or face, but the above cosmetic's appearance is indicated as "Yansan City", and other commercial signboards were produced in the process of putting the appearance of the building occupied by the above cosmetic's beauty room, and broadcast the plaintiff's personal interview without altering the plaintiff's voice. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the surrounding persons of the cosmetic's beauty room of this case can be seen as known to the plaintiff's "○○○" operated by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that the victim was identified as the plaintiff is correct, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and there is no violation of legal principles as to the victim's specific contents in defamation as

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 14(1) of the former Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008) provides that “Any person who suffers damage due to the failure of a press report to be true may file a request with a press organization for a corrective report concerning the contents of the press report within three months from the date the press report became aware of the existence of the relevant press report.” Thus, in order to file a request for a corrective report under the above Act, the relevant press report is a factual assertion and must not be true. Here, the authenticity of a press report is recognized when the important part is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the report, and even if there is a little difference or somewhat exaggerated expression in the detailed contents in a simple manner to easily identify complicated facts, if some specific facts are compressed and emphasized or the director of an investigation division in the course of creating an actual fact awareness in order to attract public interest, and if important parts of the report are deemed to be true in light of the overall context, it shall be deemed to be consistent with the report (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da757.

According to the records, the part of cosmetic which the Plaintiff asserted to be false cosmetics (hereinafter “the contents of cosmetics”) is the content that “if the cosmetics were posted at a place where the Plaintiff cannot see, she becomes aware of the fare during the cosmetic’s calculation process.” Specifically, Nonparty 1’s husband Nonparty 2 attached a price list at a place where she cannot see, and it is deemed unreasonable to see the head and 50,000 won following the fact that the above contents were dried off. According to the data submitted by the Plaintiff after the broadcast report of this case, the female 60,00 won of the cosmetics and 60,000 won of the cosmetics were installed at a place where the cosmetics were installed, and the female 60,000 won of the cosmetics and 50,000,000,000 won of the cosmetics and 5,000,000,000 won of the cosmetics and 2,00.

Nevertheless, based on the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the lower court’s determination that the content of the instant broadcast report is false solely on the ground that the lower court, based on the evidence as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment, attached the price table stating “the male female 50,000 won (the 50,000 won)” to the entrance of the beauty art room of this case, and on the inside wall of this case, posted the cosmetic price table on the wall of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the authenticity of the

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Even in a case where the media, such as broadcasting, has committed an act that defames another person by disclosing a fact, if the matter concerns public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, it shall be deemed that there is no illegality if the fact is true or if the actor has a reasonable ground to believe that it is true. In this context, the term "material fact" means a fact that is consistent with objective facts in light of the overall purport of the content, and even if there is a little difference from truth or somewhat exaggerated expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da52142, Mar. 23, 2006; 2007Da2268, Sept. 6, 2007).

Even according to the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the contents of the broadcast report of this case are solely for the public interest with respect to the public interest, and their true facts are as seen above. Thus, the broadcast report of this case is not unlawful.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination that the broadcast content of this case’s broadcast content is not true, and that the broadcast content of this case’s broadcast content is true, and thus its rejection of the Defendant’s assertion that the broadcast content of this case’s broadcast content would be denied is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality, or in the violation of

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

Even if a creditor has several damage claims against the same debtor, so long as the damage claims are separate claims that differ from the time when the damage claims accrue and the cause thereof, they constitute separate subject-matter of lawsuit, and a creditor who seeks this lawsuit must specify the amount of claim for each damage claim, and the court shall also specify the amount of award for each damage claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da25865, Sept. 20, 2007; 2007Da43436, Jun. 26, 2008).

According to the records, while changing the purport and cause of the claim on July 10, 2008, the plaintiff sought 5 million won as consolation money for mental damage caused by infringement of the portrait right even though he asserted that the right of voice and portrait right were infringed upon. The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, determined the quoted amount as one million won without separately specifying the amount of the claim for damages caused by infringement of the plaintiff's voice right and the infringement of portrait right.

However, according to the above facts, at the time of the closing of argument in this case, it cannot be deemed that the claim was specified because the claim for damages of KRW 5 million, which the plaintiff sought, is unclear as to a certain claim. If so, the court below should have clearly specified the claim in this case by ordering correction and supplementation by pointed out the incomplete and unclear arguments on each of the above claims for damages sought by the plaintiff by appropriately exercising the right of explanation, and then should have deliberated and determined the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claim.

Nevertheless, the court below did not exercise the right of explanation as to the unclear contents of the plaintiff's claim, and did not divide the amount of individual award based on each damage claim into the defendant, and recognized the amount of damages of one million won in a comprehensive manner against the defendant. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the non-exercise of the right of explanation or

5. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)