205Gaz. 26111 Compensation, etc. (as a result)

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Defendant 1 Broadcasting Company and six others

December 23, 2005

January 20, 2006

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The Defendants’ respective Plaintiff amounting to KRW 100,00,000, and the complaint of this case from February 1, 2005 to the Plaintiff

5 per annum from the date of service of the duplicate to the date of service of the duplicate, 20 per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

H. H. H. H.D.

2. (a) The first time after this judgment became final and conclusive by Defendant 1’s broadcasting company: A protocol of accusation against current events broadcasted in 50;

at the beginning of the program and in the first order of the first, a corrective report on the right side of the screen.

Title 5 and [I] The title “as to the news report corruption” is indicated and progress;

a correction report in section 1 of the loan, which is the same as the program progress with the caption;

D. Road reading.

B. Defendant 1’s broadcasting company did not perform the matters described in the foregoing paragraph (a) within 15 days after this judgment became final and conclusive.

(1) If the above defendant does not have the right to file a claim with the plaintiff

The amount shall be paid at the rate of KRW 1,00,000 per day.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiff corporation (hereinafter "the plaintiff corporation") is a corporation that operates the business of transmitting domestic university students to the internship program operated by a foreign company, and the defendant 1 broadcasting company (hereinafter "the defendant 1 broadcasting company") is a broadcasting company that produces and broadcasts the current news accusation program, etc. The defendant 2 is a reporter belonging to the defendant 2, and the defendant 3 through 7 (hereinafter "the defendant 3-7") graduated from the department related to the hotel operation in domestic universities or is currently attending the department related to the hotel operation.

B. In order to participate in the internship program operated by the Defendant students (1) in the U.S., Defendant students entered into a contract with the Plaintiff Company to pay approximately KRW 4,80,000,000 as an agency fee between the Plaintiff Company and to delegate the work related to the hotel server program to the Plaintiff Company on October 2003.

(2) Around November 2003, Plaintiff Company’s overseas staff member of the Plaintiff Company presented employment proposal (No. 1-5 No. 1-2 and No. 2-1-5) of Li-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si (hereinafter “Non-party Company”) in the U.S. New Mexico, which was sent to Defendant students by the U.S. local agency of the U.S., and explained the Defendant students to the effect that the Non-party Company is a high-class-class-ri-law-in-law-U.S.-ten-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-s.

(3) Accordingly, the Defendant students agreed to participate in the internship program of the non-party company arranged by the Plaintiff company. On March 25, 2004, the Plaintiff entered the U.S. local area around the same month and started work in the above company from around the 30th of the same month. Unlike the initial estimate, the Defendant students were only responsible for the work, such as management of turf, garbage disposal, turbing, and kitchen cleaning, etc., and the duty circulation to the turg or food and beverage department, etc. was not properly performed.

(4) The defendant student explained that it is impossible for the defendant 2 to be assigned to other departments in charge of the non-party company's above employment proposal or future bargaining franchises, and that it is also possible for the defendant 2 to perform the business related to the customer contact. On June 2004, the defendant company started to arrange another intern who can extend the business circulation to the plaintiff company or request the plaintiff company to refund part of the brokerage fee. (5) The plaintiff company introduced another intern company to the defendant student to the effect that it was impossible for the defendant company to convert the program into another personal service, and the plaintiff company rejected some of the defendant's request, but the defendant company rejected it. (1) the defendant company did not request the defendant company to exchange part of the defendant company's broadcast and its contents to the non-party 2's representative director for the purpose that it was not possible for the defendant company to request the plaintiff company to exchange part of the defendant company's personal service experience to the non-party 1 to the defendant company.

A. The broadcast of this case, the main contents and the program of the broadcast of this case, are as follows.

① Although Kim Jong-Un was to take part in the internship program with knowledge that he was employed as a teacher of the kindergarten (a person who was employed as a teacher of the kindergarten), the case was actually made by the defendant student, not a teacher of the kindergarten, and the case was actually made to the U.S. to take part in the hotel tour program by preparing detailed contract about the curriculum and by the defendant student to participate in the hotel tour program. However, the case was actually made up of fright management and the case was returned to the plaintiff (a person who broadcasted the above-mentioned contents while introducing the damage case of the defendant student).

② In relation to the damage cases of Kim Jong-Un, the contents that the domestic human resources brokerage company goes beyond the problem to the local brokerage company in Australia without properly grasping the damage situation of Kim Jong-sung, ③ there is a way to resolve civil disputes in the case of a registered business entity in the Ministry of Labor. However, according to the current law, the job placement recommendation business and registration in the Ministry of Labor can only be simple procedures, and according to the statements of the victims of overseas internships, it is difficult to trust that the registered business entity in the Ministry of Labor is also a registered business entity that continues to change its name with the fact that it is not difficult to register the business entity in the Ministry of Labor, and further, it is difficult to trust that the registered business entity is also a registered business entity that suffers damage, such as forgery of the passport or fraud, by introducing the program contents of the Han River University and the Trade Association, as a successful case of overseas internships.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, Gap evidence 2-1 to 6, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 2-5 to 10 each entry

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The assertion of the Plaintiff Company (1) Defendant broadcaster and Defendant 2 did not duly gather the Plaintiff Company, on the basis of the unilateral argument of the Plaintiff Company, describe the conversation between the Defendant students and the Plaintiff’s employees on the basis of the unilateral argument, and then editing and broadcasting it as if the Plaintiff Company engaged in illegal business through changing the name from time to time without any refund. This constitutes a false fact-finding act or an act of impairing the Plaintiff Company’s reputation by illegally interfering with the Plaintiff’s business affairs, and thus, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff Company’s damages. (2) Although the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff Company deceivings the Plaintiff Company as if the business circulation would have been verified, the Defendant Company’s employment proposal and the future mining franchise specifys the Plaintiff Company’s work circulation, and the Defendant 3 actually carried out the recreation work in the Nonparty Company on July 2004, since some of the Defendant Company did not proceed due to the lack of English circulation.

Nevertheless, Defendant students forced Defendant students to not participate in the Plaintiff Company’s U.S. program several times by e-mail and telephone against Defendant students, and forced the Plaintiff Company not to participate in the Plaintiff Company’s U.S. program. ② Other Internet bulletin board to the effect that the Plaintiff Company slandered the Plaintiff Company or suffered enormous damage caused by the Plaintiff Company to the Plaintiff Company. ④ Defendant Broadcasting Company reported false facts to Defendant Broadcasting Company, and in collusion with Defendant Broadcasting Company, reported the Plaintiff Company’s reputation and credit, thereby impairing the Plaintiff Company’s reputation and confidence, and committed tort interfering with the Plaintiff Company’s business, and thus, the Plaintiff Company is liable for compensation for the damages therefrom.

B. First of all, we examine whether the instant broadcast is detrimental to the honor of the Plaintiff Company.

Whether a television broadcast report contains any content that impairs a specific person’s reputation should be determined on the basis of the objective content of the broadcast report in question, and on the premise that the general viewers have access to a broadcast report with ordinary care, the overall impression of the report to viewers should be determined on the basis of its determination, by comprehensively taking into account the overall flow of the report, screen composition method, ordinary meaning of used words, and method of linking phrases, etc.

In the instant case, the following facts are all included: (a) Defendant broadcaster and Defendant broadcaster reported the contents of conversation divided between Defendant students and Plaintiff’s employees; (b) the content of the instant broadcast that introduces Defendant students’ damage cases; and (c) the content that Defendant students’ damage mediation companies engaged in illegal arrangement, changing their names, and evading compensation for damages.

However, among the broadcast content of this case, the part of the broadcast content of this case, which is a matter of the company of the Plaintiff (the part on which the Defendant student's dialogues with the Plaintiff's employees, such as the appearance of the Plaintiff's building, the entrance of the office, etc., and the face of the Plaintiff's employees, etc., were treated as a mother-child cream, and the voice of the Plaintiff's employees was also altered, and the broadcast of the Plaintiff's employees did not dispute the Plaintiff's company, and there is no other evidence to prove that the expression or face referred to the Plaintiff's company among the broadcast content of this case includes an expression or face, and therefore, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to report the above broadcast content as the Plaintiff company.

Moreover, the Plaintiff Company asserted that the broadcast of this case described the Plaintiff Company as an enterprise at issue of illegal business through changing the name from time to time without harming the Plaintiff Company’s refund. However, the broadcast of this case introduced the case of damage (tentative name) of Kim Jong and the case of damage to the Defendant students, and pointed out that the domestic company that arranged Kim Jong by specifying the damage case of this case was unable to properly grasp the damage situation, which led to the part that some of the registered companies of this case in the Ministry of Labor continued to cause damage to the name of the registered companies and the unregistered companies, and that some of the registered companies in the Ministry of Labor continued to cause damage to the name of the registered companies, and the unregistered companies remains difficult. This only pointed out that it was necessary to select some of the registered businesses from among the arranging businesses overseas, and it seems that the broadcast of this case did not seem to have any other content, in light of the contents and order of the broadcast of this case and its connection method, etc., it appears that the possibility that the Plaintiff Company continued to have changed the name of the general viewers in this case.

(2) Furthermore, even in a case where a media such as a broadcast does an act of impairing an individual’s reputation by pointing out a fact, if the purpose of the program is solely for the public interest, it shall be deemed unlawful if an actor believed it to be true or there is no proof that the alleged fact was true or there is considerable reason to believe it. Thus, the broadcast of this case deals with the problems and solutions of the external internship system appearing as part of the recent resolution of youth unemployment, and its public nature should be recognized (the broadcast of this case shall not be deemed to be any different from the use of the extreme title called “MIB”). Furthermore, unlike the original purport of the program for hotel artists regardless of its circumstances, and the explanation given by Defendant students prior to their departure from the Republic of Korea, it is difficult to view that the broadcast of this case’s name was modified to the extent that it was not consistent with the truth of the Plaintiff’s local company, and thus, it is difficult to see that the entire broadcast of this case’s name was modified (the broadcast of this case’s non-registration).

(3) Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the reputation of the Plaintiff Company was damaged due to the instant broadcast, and even if the general viewer, who linked to the instant broadcast, knew that the Defendant student was the Plaintiff Company, the public nature and truth of the instant broadcast content is recognized.

As long as the defendant broadcasting company and the defendant 2 are liable for damages caused by defamation, and on the other hand, even if the defendant broadcasting company partly failed to comply with the coverage process, such as taking a conversation between the defendant students and the employees of the plaintiff company, as long as the defendant broadcasting company thoroughly complied with the principle of anonymous reporting as above, it is difficult to deem that the plaintiff company suffered any damage. Accordingly, the above argument against the defendant broadcasting company and the defendant Kim Jong-hee of the plaintiff company is without merit.

C. As seen earlier, it is difficult to conclude that Defendant 4’s act is an unlawful act, since it is merely an appeal against the actual experience and damage cases or an act of providing true information to others, as long as the circumstance is contrary to the original content and purport of the hotel internship program, and the Defendant student mainly returned from the United States. Thus, Defendant 4’s act was contrary to the original content and purport of the hotel server program. Thus, Defendant 4’s act was intended to deliver his experience to others, and it did not directly interfere with the Plaintiff’s work, and it cannot be deemed that Defendant 4’s act did not directly interfere with the Plaintiff’s work, given that Defendant 4’s act was merely an appeal against the Plaintiff’s actual experience and damage cases, or that it did not directly interfere with the Plaintiff’s work. Furthermore, Defendant 4’s act did not directly interfere with the Plaintiff’s work.

(3) In addition, in the case of the Defendant’s act of coverage of Defendant’s broadcaster and its subsequent Plaintiff companies and the act of providing Defendant’s broadcaster with information on their damage cases, the Defendant’s broadcaster held the principle of anonymous reporting in broadcasting coverage coverage, as seen earlier;

In light of the fact that the defendant broadcasting company does not support the responsibility of defamation, it is difficult to recognize its illegality.

(4) Accordingly, the Plaintiff Company’s assertion against the Defendant students is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the claims of the plaintiff company of this case are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jae-ok

The number of judge history;

Judges Yellow Senior Superintendent

A person shall be appointed.