(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.5.15.선고 2012가합21387 판결

1. Within seven days from the date the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, the Defendant ○○ Newspaper Co., Ltd. shall publish a correction report in the first page of the ○○○ Newspapers Co., Ltd., as a box technician, and the title thereof shall be as stated in the attached Table 1, and the title shall be as of the same size as the title of the article subject to the correction report as that of the article subject to the correction report as indicated in the attached Table 2, the main text shall be published once in the active form of the same size as that of the article subject to the above correction report, and (b). ○○○.com (htp: / www / www.O. co., Ltd.) published the correction report in the attached Form 1 in the active form of the same size as that of the ordinary article, and after twenty-four hours have elapsed, published in the bottom of the article subject to the correction report, so that the article subject to the correction report may be searched together as long as it is searched.

2. If the defendant ○○ newspaper company did not perform the obligations under Paragraph 1 of the above paragraph, the above defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 1,00,000 per day to KRW 1,00,000 per day from the day seven days have elapsed from the day when this judgment became final to the day when the execution is completed.

3. The Defendants: (a) KRW 5,000,000 for each Plaintiff; and (b) from November 29, 2012 to May 2014, 2014 for each Plaintiff.

15. To the end, 5% interest per annum and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

4. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

5. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part 9/10 arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○ newspaper company is borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder is borne by the Defendant ○○ newspaper company, respectively, and the 19/20 of the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○○. The remainder is borne by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant ○○○, respectively.

6. Paragraph 3 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

1. The Defendant ○○ Newspaper Co., Ltd.:

A. The first page of the daily newspaper ○○○ newspaper, which was first issued after the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, is called as a box technician.

The title of "information map" shall be 28-class scopic scophers, and the main body shall be 18-class scophers, and attached Form 3

A correction report shall be printed.

B. At the same time, “htp: / www.O.co. km) at the early stage of ○○.com”

I post the term "I" in the ordinary product title itself and in the size of the letter, and attached Form 3 below.

A correction report shall be posted for the main text of the ordinary article and for 24 hours, and the original article shall be searched.

any such search as may be made available at all times.

2. The Plaintiff when the Defendant ○○ Examination Co., Ltd. did not perform the duty described in the above paragraph (1)

The amount of 5,000,000 won per day from the day after the expiration of the above period to the day after the completion of the performance shall not be paid.

D. D. D. D.

3. The Defendants jointly and severally serve the Plaintiff KRW 100,00,000 and part of the delivery of the instant complaint to the Plaintiff.

J. D. 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

At the time of the report of the article as shown in attached Table 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "article of this case"), the Plaintiff is currently a President of the Republic of Korea. Defendant ○○ newspaper company (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant ○○ newspaper”) is a press company that publishes ○○○. (htp: / www / www. O.O.com; hereinafter referred to as “○○○○.com”), a daily newspaper, ○○○○○ newspaper and online newspaper, and Defendant Gangwon-do is a person who written the article of this case as the reporter of Defendant ○○○ newspaper.

B. Report of the article of this case

While Defendant ○○○’s newspaper had the front of the 18th presidential election and reported a planning engineer for the purpose of verifying candidates for the presidential election, on August 29, 2012, the article of this case (hereinafter “the article of this case’s No. 1 through No. 7) prepared by Defendant Do○○ with respect to the Plaintiff was published in ○○ newspaper and ○○.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1 and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The plaintiff;

The Defendants posted the article of this case containing false information about the Plaintiff, thereby impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought corrective reports and indirect compulsory performance against the Defendant’s newspaper as stated in Articles 1 and 2 of the Civil Act, which are appropriate measures for restoring honor under Article 764 of the Civil Act, and seek payment of KRW 100,000,000 as compensation for mental damage pursuant to Article 751(1) of the Civil Act, and damages for delay thereof. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion related to the part (i) of the article of this case as part of the article of this case.

The Plaintiff, while serving as the president of the ○○○ Association, received remuneration and interference expenses, and the said remuneration, etc. did not reach 10% of the annual scholarship. However, the article ① states ○○○○ Association as personal funding, and states that the remuneration, etc. received by the Plaintiff is up to 10% of the annual ○○ Association scholarship.

2) As to the part concerning the article of this case

On February 28, 2005, the Plaintiff resigned from the position of the president of the ○○○○ Association. The Development Committee for the Finding of Truth of the National Intelligence History (hereinafter “former History Committee”) concluded on May 26, 2005, but the Defendants reported that the Plaintiff had resigned from the position of the president of the ○○○ Association by governmental authority on ○○○○○○○ Association. 3) The Defendants reported the Plaintiff’s past history committee’s “the ○○ Association’s contribution to the ○○ Association by governmental authority” as if the Plaintiff had resigned from the position of the president of the ○○○ Association.

The Defendants, only based on the fact that the Plaintiff stated that the ○○○○○ lawyer, who is the wife of the birth, was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was a woman in Hong Kong through the press report, expressed as if the relationship between the Plaintiff and the birth couple was a child.

4) Claims regarding the article 4, 7, and part

The time when the Plaintiff assumed office as the president of the ○○ Foundation was not 1983 years but 1982, and the most ○○○○○ around the above time did not go back to the Plaintiff’s part. Moreover, even though the judgment of the court was rendered that the most ○○ and the most ○○○ constituted the property by embezzlement or fraudulent act of the ○○ Foundation’s public funds, the Defendants were not objectively verified.

5) Claim as to the article 5, 6, and part

The plaintiff did not have the "○○ Team" team, and even though Ma○○ was expressed that Ma○ was retired from the plaintiff's assistant position on March 2004, the defendants reported the above articles without any grounds.

B. Although the Defendants are different from the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○ Association’s resignation period, and the period of the Plaintiff’s appointment of the president of the ○○ Foundation, the remainder of the article cannot be deemed false facts. The contents of the article of this case are for the public interest and for the public interest as a matter of public interest, or there is considerable reason to believe that it is true, and thus,

3. Determination as to the request for a corrective report

A. Relevant legal principles

Where a person defames another person by publishing a fact through the press and publishing, the Plaintiff is liable to prove the falsity when the Plaintiff claims damages by claiming that the alleged fact is false or false as the cause of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da58823, Jan. 24, 2008). In determining whether a factual assertion is true, the victim may prove it by submitting sufficient evidence as to its existence or absence (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da52649, Sept. 2, 201). In addition, defamation under the Civil Act refers to an objective act infringing on a human value, such as a person’s character, character, reputation, credit, etc., which is subject to the objective evaluation, and where it infringes on an objective opinion or evaluation, it shall not be deemed that there is a mere expression of opinion or evaluation by the other party’s expression of opinion or opinion within the scope of 90 square meters.

B. Determination as to whether a corrective report is subject to a corrective report

1) Part 1 of the article of this case

In addition, in light of the basic facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the above part is indicated as being paid by the Plaintiff while serving as the president of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

2) Part concerning the article 2 of this case

However, even if the Plaintiff resigned from the position of the president of the ○○○○○○○○ Council before the conclusion was reached, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendants reported the part concerning the article 2 of this case, stating the time of the Plaintiff’s resignation. As seen below, this part does not fit the truth, and as seen below, the Defendant has a duty to make a corrective report as to the above part, on the ground that there is no reason to believe that the illegality of Defendant ○○ newspaper was

3) Part on article 3 of this case

The part of the article in this case’s article’s article’s article’s article’s three expression of origin between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband and wife seeking a corrective report, etc. is merely a mere expression of opinion that the relationship between the Plaintiff and the birth and birth couple seems to have arisen, and it is difficult to view it as a factual assertion that reduces the social evaluation against the Plaintiff. 4) The article’s fourth part of the article in this case’s article’s fourth part.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s appointment of the chief director of the ○○ Foundation was around October 1982, unlike the article ④ of this case, there is no dispute between the parties. However, it is difficult to recognize that the content of the corrective report sought by the Plaintiff is not related to the core of the article of this case, and is related only to the fact that the content of the corrective report is limited to the fact that it is short of the nature, and there is no benefit to make a corrective report, and that the Plaintiff’s reputation was damaged by the said part of the report of this case. In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the part of the article of this case’s article’

5) 5 to 7 parts of the article of this case

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above part is false.

Furthermore, in consideration of the health stand, the contents and methods of a correction report requested by the Plaintiff, the contents and quantity of the report of this case, the method of expression, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, the corresponding part of the correction report of attached Form 3, which the Plaintiff seeks, shall be corrected and published as shown in attached Table 1, and the size and method of publication of the correction report shall also be determined as stated in attached Table 1.

D. Considering the various circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case by indirect compulsory performance, it is probable that Defendant ○○○ Examination did not perform the duty to act as set forth above within a given period. In light of the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the instant report, the order of indirect compulsory performance as set forth in the Disposition should be ordered.

4. Determination as to a claim for damages

A. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

As seen earlier, the part ② of the instant article was false, and the part ② of the instant article was expressed as if the Plaintiff had no choice but to be dismissed until the conclusion of the previous committee’s ○○○○ Council was reached, and damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by defamation.

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the part related to the Plaintiff’s most of the article’s ①, ③, and ④ the part related to the Plaintiff’s most of ○○○○ and the most of ○○○○ as a false or factual event. Of the article’s fourth part, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s reputation was damaged due to the above part of the article’s news report. However, the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendants damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation by pointing out false facts is without merit. However, in light of the article’s ①, ②, ②, and ④, the part related to the article’s most of ○○ and ○○○○○’s property formation, which are not directly related to the Plaintiff, and thus did not damage the Plaintiff’s reputation (the Defendants asserted that the article was published for the purpose of verifying the Plaintiff’s morality, and that the Defendants were unfairly affected the Plaintiff’s reputation formation of ○○○ Foundation’s property by pointing out specific facts related to the Plaintiff’s reputation formation.

B. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) We examine all of the news reports of this case for the public interest, and examine the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants do not bear tort liability based on defamation, since the Defendants believed that they were true and there are reasonable grounds to believe that they were true and illegal. 2) The relevant legal principles are examined.

Even in cases where a person’s act of impairing another’s reputation by expressing a fact through the press and publishing was committed, if it is proved that it was for the public interest only, such act is not unlawful if it is proved that it was true, and there is no reasonable ground for the actor to believe it as true even if there is no proof (Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da35199 Decided May 12, 2006, 2005Da2005 Decided January 24, 2008).

5823) In addition, setting the limit between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, the standard of review shall vary depending on whether the victim who is damaged by the expression in question is a public figure or private figure, or whether the expression pertains to purely private matter. In the case of expression on a matter of public or social significance, the restriction on the freedom of press should be mitigated. In particular, in light of the morality and integrity of public officials and the need for the monitoring function of public officials and political parties, any suspicion about such issue shall not be easily held unless it is malicious or considerably unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da64384, Jul. 8, 200). Even if it is deemed that the contents of press reports are beyond the bounds of 1st 7th e.g., reporting on public official’s reputation or public interest, it is sufficient and reasonable to determine that the contents of the press reports are beyond the bounds of 2nd 7th e.g., reporting on public official’s reputation or public interest.

3) In light of the basic facts of the determination criteria and specific determination, the Plaintiff was in the position of incumbent member of the National Assembly or President as a candidate at the time of the report of the instant article, and thus, the Plaintiff’s morality constitutes a major issue of public interest among the general public. Therefore, the instant article constitutes not only a public figure but also a matter of public interest and social nature that the subject of the report should be known to the general public. Therefore, the restriction on the freedom of the press is mitigated, and its illegality is recognized only when the contents of the instant article are assessed to be considerably unreasonable due to malicious or extremely rush attack against the Plaintiff individual, a senior public official elected.

B) Part concerning the article 2

In light of the Plaintiff’s morality as a candidate for the president, it is clear that the main purpose of the above part is for public interest in light of the time and method of the report, etc., but its contents are false, and the Defendants appear to have reported the part of the article in this case without confirming the status to easily verify the above contents (Evidence B 4 and 5). Moreover, the part of the article in this case cannot be deemed to have been an urgent case to be reported without confirming sufficient facts. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s 2nd part of the article in this case is the Plaintiff’s 0th president’s unconstitutional payment by governmental authority, and the Plaintiff’s 2nd part of the article in this case’s 0th president’s 0th president’s 1990 president’s 2nd 0th o.m., the Plaintiff’s 2nd o0th son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son was aware of the above facts.

C) In full view of the following circumstances and the motive and circumstance of the publication of the instant article, and the overall content and structure of the article, the social evaluation of the Plaintiff may be lowered as the instant article, in full view of (i) whether the instant article’s parts related to ○○○ et al., (ii) lack of illegality in the determination criteria, and (iii) whether the aforementioned parts related to ○○ et al., were included in the items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 through 10 (including some numbers).

Although there is room for doubt, there is a considerable reason to believe that the Defendants are true.

In addition, the above part cannot be seen as a malicious or extremely rush attack against the plaintiff individual who is an authorized official, and its illegality is judged to be dismissed.

(1) The part ① of the article of this case stated that the Plaintiff was paid money by 'the Plaintiff while in office as the president of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., was paid 10% of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s scholarship. The Defendants did not conclude that the Plaintiff was paid 10% of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s scholarship. The part of the article appears to be the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○○○○○○.

(3) Of the article of this case, the article of this case focuses on introducing suspicions and arguments raised in Japan using the expression of 'Cruel' (4, 5, 7) and 'former speech (6)'. These suspicions have been actually raised, the defendants were dead since 2007 in relation to 100.

On the other hand, I did not know because it is difficult to avoid, and reported the plaintiff's statement about the formation of the property, including the plaintiff's statement, â€˜(the relationship)', â€˜The plaintiff', â€˜The property of the plaintiff and the candidate for gambling are his superior.'

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is justified.

C. Scope of damages

Inasmuch as it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental pain due to the publication and report of the article 2, the Defendants are obliged to compensate for damages caused by the Plaintiff’s emotional distress.

In full view of the part ② of the article ②, the degree of effort by the Defendants to confirm the facts, the weight and social influence of the newspaper published in each of the article in this case on the press, the Plaintiff’s social status, and the Plaintiff’s President’s candidate, which affected the social evaluation. On the other hand, the Defendants prepared and posted each of the articles in this case solely for the public interest purpose, and other circumstances indicated in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to determine the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendants to the Plaintiff as KRW 5,00,000.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants, as a result of tort, are obligated to claim against each of the Plaintiff on November 29, 2012, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, as sought by the Plaintiff, as to the existence and scope of the Defendants’ obligations, from November 29, 2012 to May 15, 2014, which is the date of the judgment of this case, to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.