Government Information Agency (Law Firm Mal, Attorneys Jeon Tae-gu et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Dong Il Daily Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

oly 11, 2002

Seoul District Court Decision 2001Kaga11669 Delivered on October 19, 2001

1. All appeals filed by the petitioner and the respondent are dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by each person.

1. Purport of request;

피신청인은 제1심 판결을 송달 받은 후 최초로 발행하는 동아일보의 제4면에 상자 기사로, 별지 5 기재 반론보도문을 제목은 대상기사인 『국정홍보처장 ｀툭하면 성명´』 제목과 같은 크기로, 본문은 위 기사의 본문 활자 크기로 1회 게재하고, 별지 6 기재 반론보도문을 제목은 대상기사인 『닫힌 국무회의』 제목과 같은 크기로, 본문은 위 기사의 본문 활자 크기로 1회 게재하고, 제5면에 상자기사로 별지 7 기재 반론보도문을 제목은 대상기사인 『국정홍보처장의 ‘궤변’』 제목과 같은 크기로, 본문은 위 기사의 본문 활자 크기로 1회 게재하고, 피신청인이 위와 같은 의무를 이행하지 아니 하는 경우 피신청인은 신청인에게 위 반론보도를 명한 다음날부터 이행완료시까지 1일 오백만(5,000,000)원의 비율에 의한 돈을 지급하라.

2. Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the applicant corresponding to the order for performance in the next part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The respondent shall be a winner's article in the fourth page of the East Asia newsletter issued for the first time after receiving the judgment of the court of first instance, and shall publish the counterargument report in the attached Form 6 once in the size of active and figures such as articles in attached Form 3, and where the respondent fails to perform the above obligations, the respondent shall pay the applicant money in proportion to the amount of KRW 5 million per day (5,00,000) from the day after ordering the applicant to submit the above counterargument report to

Respondents: Cancellation of the part against the respondent in the judgment of the first instance, and the claim of the applicant corresponding to that part is dismissed.

3. Purport of request, such as a report of cancellation.

The respondent may report the same contents as the attached Form 8 after the judgment of the court of a party is rendered, and the applicant shall pay 37,792,000 won to the respondent.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties:

A. Status of the parties

Under the Government Organization Act, the applicant is an agency in charge of public relations in Korea and abroad, coordination of public relations affairs within the government, gathering public opinion on government affairs, and making government announcements. The head of the Government Information Bureau, the representative of the applicant, is in charge of the affairs of the Government delegate, and the respondent is publishing a daily newspaper called "Dong Day" as a corporation for the purpose of publishing and selling newspapers.

(b) Details of reports by the respondent;

피신청인은 동아일보 2001. 7. 4.자 A 4면에 『국정홍보처장 ‘툭하면 성명`』 이라는 제목으로, 언론사 세무조사에 대한 오홍근 국정홍보처장의 잦은 대언론 비판성명과 그 내용이 정부 안팎에서 논란이 되고 있다는 내용의 기사를 게재하면서 ‘사흘에 한번꼴 언론보도 공격’, ‘한나라“총대메고 나셨나” 비난’ 등의 기사내용 요약을 고딕체로 기재하고, 국정홍보처장이 2001. 6. 23.부터 2001. 7. 2.까지 언론사 세무조사에 대한 언론 보도를 비난하는 공식성명을 4번이나 발표했으며, 정부 관계자의 말을 인용하여 정부 성명이 남발되고 있다고 보도하는 한편 정치권에서도 ‘국정홍보처장이 왜 언론사 세무조사 문제에 총대를 메고 나서느냐’는 비판이 있다고 보도(이하 ‘이 사건 1 보도’라 한다, 기사 전문은 별지 2 기재와 같다)하고, 같은 날짜 신문의 A 5면에는 『오 국정홍보처장의 ‘궤변’』 이라는 제목으로, 정부의 언론사 세무조사에 관한 보도를 놓고 국정홍보처 오홍근 처장의 이상한 발언이 잇따르고 있으며 연론사 세무조사의 피해당사자인 언론사가 세무조사의 불순한 동기를 비판하는 것은 지극히 당연한데도, 국정홍보처장이 이 같은 언론 본연의 보도 및 비판행위를 왜곡 편향이라고 비난하고 국정수행방해나 국론분열 조장이라고 하는 것은 궤변이라고 할 수밖에 없다는 내용의 사설을 게재(이하 ‘이 사건 2 보도’라 한다, 사설 전문은 별지 4 기재와 같다)하였고, 동아일보 2001. 7. 5.자 4면에 『‘닫힌 국무회의’』 라는 제목으로, 김대중 대통령이 정부 출범과 함께 표방했던 토론과 현장 중심의 ‘열린 국무회의’가 집권 후반기에 들어서면서 청와대 중심의 ‘닫힌 국무회의’로 변질되고 있다는 내용의 기사를 게재하면서 ‘장관들 난상토론 사라지고 대통령지시 받아적기 급급’, ‘세종로-과천청사 각의 줄고’, ‘청와대 회의만 점점 늘어’, ‘DJ 발언도 갈수록 길어져’, ‘현장-민심 챙기기 퇴색’ 등의 기사내용 요약을 고딕체로 기재하고, 대통령이 정부 출범 당시 세종로 중앙청사 및 과천청사에도 자주 나가 국무회의를 갖겠다고 한 약속과 달리 해마다 청와대에서 국무회의를 갖는일이 잦아졌다고 하면서 청와대에서 하는 회의나 행사만으로는 참된 민심과 여론을 읽을 수 없다라는 지적이 있다고 보도(이하 ‘이 사건 3 보도’라 한다, 기사 전문은 별지 3기재와 같다)하였다.

(c) Request for arbitration by the Claimant

The Claimant filed an arbitration with the Press Arbitration Commission on July 18, 2001 regarding each of the instant reports, and the said Commission rendered an arbitration decision on July 30, 200, but the Respondent filed an objection against the arbitration decision.

2. Determination on this safety defense

The respondent asserts that with respect to the applicant's prior claim for a counterargument report on the grounds that the respondent was damaged by each of the reports of this case published in the East Asian Report issued by the respondent, the applicant is merely a government organization under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister and is not capable of being a party and not recognized as a party's standing.

Article 16 (7) of the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act provides that "the State, local governments, the heads of institutions, or organizations may file a claim for counterargument report on behalf of the relevant institution or organization". The purpose of this provision is to facilitate prompt and strict relief of the victim's rights, even if the victim's ability is not recognized under the Civil Procedure Act, if the victim is a social individual who works as a single unit of social life, it shall be given the party's ability to exercise the claim for counterargument report in court. On the other hand, Article 24-2 (1) of the Government Organization Act provides that "The Government Organization Act shall have the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister to take charge of the affairs concerning public relations in Korea and abroad, public relations in government, public relations in government, collection of public opinion about government affairs, and government announcements." In light of the records, the applicant can be sufficiently recognized that the applicant is performing the above affairs as a national administrative agency, and therefore, the respondent's ability to file a claim for counterargument report is clear in accordance with the provisions of the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Judgment on the first and second reports of this case

(1) Appropriateness of a request for counterargument

(A) According to the above facts, the report of this case 1 and 2 of the East Asia's report contains a factual assertion that the Minister of Government Information and Communications, beyond the scope of the main duty of this year, makes an abnormal publication of the government's name on the investigation of the media company beyond the scope of the main duty, and that all reports criticize the "unfair motive" of the investigation of the media company, contain a factual assertion that the report was distorted as a biased report, an act interfering with the government's performance, and an act that encourages the government's division, and due to the news and private opinion of these contents, the Government Information and Communications Agency in charge of the affairs of the government's announcement was damaged. Thus, the applicant has the right to claim the respondent to report his counterargument.

(B) As to this, the respondent first asserts that the report of this case 1 and 2 is unfair since the contents of the article are based on facts. However, the claim for objection recognized by the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act is the right to demand the victim to publish the contents of the press report in a manner consistent with the truth, and it is not the right to demand the victim to make a corrective report consistent with the contents of the press report. Thus, whether the contents of the press report are true or true or not can be recognized as a claim for objection against the contents of the report consistent with the truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da4098, Feb. 24, 1998; 90Da25468, Jan. 15, 1991). Therefore, the above claim of the respondent is without merit without any need to further examine it.

Next, before making the report of this case 1 and 2, the respondent has faithfully reported the name of the applicant every time when the report of this case was made, and since the report of this case 1 and 2 had sufficient counterarguments to seek a counterargument report, the applicant claims that there is no legitimate interest in claiming a counterargument report. Accordingly, according to the statements of 1, 2, and 3-1, 3-1, 3-2, it is recognized that the respondent has reported the name of the applicant before the report of this case 1 and 2, and the respondent stated in the middle part of the report of this case 1 that "the above statement is because some of the applicants have sold the government's legitimate tax audit as carbon pressure and can examine the public's misunderstanding." Since the name of the Respondent was 1, 2,000,000 that the Respondent is a legitimate exercise of the right of reply at the government level, it is not necessary to view that the Respondent has a legitimate interest in the report of this case 9-2, which is an individual victim's right of reply.

(2) Details, size and method of publication of the counterargument report

Considering the length of the respondent at issue in this case 1 and 2 reports of this case, the content that the applicant may be deemed to have suffered damage to his duties among the contents thereof, the factual statements that the applicant intends to claim and the scope of explanation necessary to clarify them, etc., the contents of the counterargument reports of this case 1 and 2 reports of this case shall be combined within the scope of each counterargument report as stated in attached Tables 5 and 7 sought by the applicant, and it shall be reasonable to determine as shown in attached Tables 1 and 1. The method of printing such counterargument reports shall be deemed to be reasonable in the same manner as the counterargument report of this case 1 and 2 reports of this case and the method of printing the counterargument reports of this case shall be deemed to have been published within 4 days from the date on which the judgment was served as a box at A4 of the East Asia, which is published within 4 days from the date on which the judgment was served, and the remaining contents shall be deemed to have been necessary to achieve the purpose of the counterargument report of this case as a witness in attached Form 2 as well as the method of one body and the same body as the main body.

(3) Indirect compulsory performance

On the other hand, where the respondent fails to perform the above obligations within the above period, it is reasonable that the respondent shall pay to the applicant the rate of KRW 5 million (5,000,000) every day from the day following the expiration of the above period until the completion of the performance.

B. Judgment on the report of this case 3

The Claimant requested that the Respondent in charge of the affairs of the Government’s announcement shall organize the official admission of the Government and publish a counterargument report such as the attached Table 6, since the Respondent was damaged by the instant 3 news published in the East Asia.

However, Article 16(1) of the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act provides that "a person who is injured by a factual assertion made public" may claim a counterargument report, and Article 16(7) of the same Act provides that "the State, a local government, the head of an institution, or the head of an organization may claim a counterargument report on behalf of the institution or organization." Thus, the applicant and the institution like the applicant may claim a counterargument report in case where the person suffered damages due to a factual assertion about the institution's business. The article of the "Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S.

4.In conclusion

Therefore, the petitioner's request for counter-performance of a claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no ground, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as the conclusion is consistent with this, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff and the respondent.

Judges Lee Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)