[1] The meaning of Article 16(3) proviso of the former Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act “where a person does not have a legitimate interest in exercising a claim for counter-performance

[2] The case holding that the report of the above interviewer does not constitute a ground under the proviso of Article 16 (3) of the former Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act on the ground that in light of the media's content of the interview with the reporter, the contents of the interview cannot be seen as properly reflected in the reporter's rebuttals

[1] Article 16 (3) of the former Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act (amended by Act No. 7369 of Jan. 27, 2005) (see current Article 15 (4) of the Act on the Freedom of Newspapers, etc. and Guarantee of Their Functions / [2] Article 16 (3) of the former Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act (amended by Act No. 7369 of Jan. 27, 2005) (see current Article 15 (4) of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da28803 delivered on October 28, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 363)

Applicant (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Yang Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Respondent

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na40113 decided May 1, 2003

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

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below is justified in ordering the respondent to make a counterargument report, taking into account the contents and length of the article as stated in its holding, the legal interests of the applicant infringed upon, the scope of explanation necessary to clarify the factual statements the applicant intends to claim, etc., and there is no illegality such as misconception of facts contrary to the rules of evidence.

B. The phrase "cases where the applicant does not have legitimate interest in the exercise of the right to request a counterargument report" in the proviso of Article 16 (3) of the Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act (amended by Act No. 5620 of Dec. 31, 1998, hereinafter "the Act") means cases where the purpose of the counterargument report has been achieved because the contents of the counterargument report, which the applicant has already reported the original literary article, have made sufficient proportion to the original literary article through the relevant daily newspaper (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da28803, Dec. 28, 1997). Thus, although the court below acknowledged the fact that the applicant reported the contents of the interview to the applicant, it is not reasonable to view that the applicant properly reflected the contents of the counterargument report in light of the content of the report or the attitude of the report, etc., and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the applicant.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

The court below's decision is justifiable in light of the records that even if the evidence examined by the court below was neglected, it is not sufficient to recognize that the contents of the counterargument report cited by the court of first instance are obviously contrary to the facts. Therefore, there is no violation of the rules of evidence

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)