In a case where a newspaper company, etc. publishes so-called "advertising" in which the contents of the duty of care and newspaper company, etc., which are to be borne by the newspaper company, etc. are delivered by an advertiser to publicize a specific product, are inserted as a news article in a false or exaggerated manner, or a false content is prepared based on the content delivered by an advertiser and posted it as a news article in a news report which is not an advertisement, thereby causing damage to an advertiser who is trusted as a news article other than an advertisement through commercial transactions, whether the newspaper company, etc.

Advertisement refers to any means widely known to an unspecified number of general public. However, the so-called “news advertising” that takes the form of an article is also a kind of advertisement. According to the composition, content, editing method, etc., such news-type advertisements may easily mislead general readers into “news articles” rather than “advertisement.” In other words, the general readers are aware of the advertisement as news articles, and trusting that newspapers or online newspapers, etc. (hereinafter “news companies, etc.”) have fulfilled their duty of care necessary for preparing news reports based on their ability to collect information, and are likely to accept such advertisement as fact. Article 6(3) of the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, etc. provides that “The editors of newspapers and online newspapers and online news service should clearly separate and edit news reports so that readers do not confuse news articles and advertisements, so as to prevent confusion, thereby protecting the rights and interests of readers.”

Therefore, in cases where a newspaper company, etc. publishes news-type advertisements by delivering contents promoting specific products, etc. from an advertiser, it should be clearly indicated that it is an advertisement so that readers can determine the value of information and make a reasonable decision on the premise that it is an advertisement, and it should not use any indication or expression that may be misunderstood as a news engineer.

If a reader who has trusted as a news article other than an advertisement suffers damage by posting a false content as a news article or inserting a false content in a news report based on the content delivered by an advertiser, etc., the newspaper company, etc. may also be held liable for joint tort by aiding and abetting the newspaper company, etc. to the extent that the proximate causal relationship between the publishing act in the news advertisement and the loss of the reader is acknowledged.

Article 6(3) of the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc., Articles 750, 760(1) and (3) of the Civil Act

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Go Dong-mo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Han-Gyeong.com (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Nam-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na2000602 decided February 6, 2015

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Advertisement refers to any means widely known to the general public. However, the so-called “news article-type advertisement” is also a kind of advertisement, although it is a material advertisement, and the form of an article is also a kind of advertisement. According to the composition, content, method of editing, etc., the advertisement of the article may allow the general readers to easily misunderstand the advertisement as a “news article” rather than a “advertisement.” In other words, the general readers know the advertisement as a news article and trust that the newspaper company, online newspaper company, etc. (hereinafter “ newspaper company, etc.”) fulfilled their duty of care necessary for preparing news reports based on their ability to collect information, and trust it is likely to accept it as a fact. Article 6(3) of the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, etc. (hereinafter “New Act”) provides that “The editors of newspapers and online newspapers and news service should clearly distinguish news articles from advertisements so that readers do not confuse with news articles and advertisements, and to protect the rights and interests of readers by preventing such misunderstanding or confusion.”

Therefore, in cases where a newspaper company, etc. publishes news-type advertisements by delivering contents promoting specific products, etc. from an advertiser, it should be clearly indicated that it is an advertisement so that readers can determine the value of the relevant information and make a reasonable selection and decision on the premise that it is an advertisement, and it should not use any indication or expression that may be mistaken as a news engineer.

If a reader who trusted as a news article other than an advertisement by posting a false content in a news report or inserting a false content in a news report based on the content delivered by an advertiser, etc., suffers damage from the conduct of commercial transactions with the advertiser, etc., the newspaper company, etc. may also be held liable for joint tort by aiding and abetting the newspaper company, etc. to the extent that the proximate causal relationship between the publication of the article and the occurrence of the reader's damage is acknowledged.

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant article No. 1 constituted an “official advertisement,” and that the Plaintiffs, who trusted this, received the payment of gift certificates to the Nonparty, who was the advertiser, and thereby inflicted damages upon the Nonparty by fraud, thereby the Defendant is liable for joint tort liability by aiding and abetting the Plaintiffs as to the damages. The summary is as follows.

A. The Defendant is an online newspaper company that operates “www.hanakyung.com” (hereinafter “www Gung-si site”), a Internet economic news site. The website also holds the Internet homepage of the Korean Economic Newspapers, a company that publishes the Korean Economic Newspapers in a daily newspaper.

Around October 201, the Nonparty: (a) planned to acquire the price by means of soliciting customers through advertisements for selling merchandise coupons by means of false merchandise coupon discounts, and not sending merchandise coupons; (b) registered the business with the trade name of “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,” which is the type of business of clothing and miscellaneous electronic commerce for the first time on November 201; and (c) opened “(Internet address omitted)” (hereinafter referred to as “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△”) on December 1, 201 and began selling merchandise coupons through the website of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△.

On December 2, 2011, the non-party, who was urged by the Defendant to provide an article about △△△△△△△△△△△, and to provide a draft of “written request for partnership” and a draft of article, stating that the Defendant selected △△△△△△△△ as the above-mentioned sub-party as the eligible sub-party.

On December 5, 2011, the Defendant: (a) selected the △△△△△△△△△△△ from Defendant as a water company in the social money sector subject to small and medium enterprises brand in the latter part of the second half of the year of 2011; and (b) introduces what “social money is “Issky ??” and introduces what is “Isky, among social money companies, the source of which is unclear, has increased; and (c) on the premise that “Isky △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△,” the Defendant posted the first engineer of this case, stating that “Isky △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△,” which was certified by ISO901, was not well known with trust among consumers,” and that “Iskn 124 million won,” and the Nonparty provided the first engineer of this case with respect to Defendant 124 million.

After the establishment of the △△△△ website, the Nonparty posted an advertisement stating that “The gift certificates are sold at a minimum of 12% to a maximum of 25% at the beginning of January, 2012. In advance payment of the gift certificates, the gift certificates will be delivered once in one month at the intervals of a maximum of six months from the maximum of three months, depending on the discount sale rate.” The Plaintiffs ordered the gift certificates and deposited the gift certificates to the Nonparty through the △△△△△△△△△△△△△ site from December 5, 201 to January 9, 2012, but the Plaintiffs suffered damage from acquiring the difference between the amount of the gift certificates and the amount received.

B. A newspaper company as a newspaper company bears the duty of editing articles by clearly distinguishing the news articles from the advertisement. However, the phrase “a copy” is not written in the middle or surrounding areas of the first engineer of this case. Rather, the Defendant, after the Nonparty’s fraud was known, deleted the first engineer of this case. The purpose and content of the first engineer of this case is not the news report or comment, but the sale of goods and services is not the news report or comment, and thus, it is an advertisement in substance borrowed the form of the article. The Defendant prepared the first engineer of this case by lending the form of the article, not the form of the advertisement, but did not indicate that it is an advertisement. In posting the first engineer of this case, the Defendant violated the duty of distinguishing between the advertisement and the article.

C. The article 1 of this case contains a lot of side effects on the social financing website, and △△△△△△ is an enterprise that has received consumers’ trust from the offline. However, in the draft article provided to the Defendant by the Nonparty, the article states that “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ New Open on December 1, 201,” and the partnership application states that “whether a new company may be able to be able to be able to believe it?” The article states that “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△?” and “I will naturally receive the doubt?”. Nevertheless, the Defendant stated that the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, a mere social money website opened at least four days before being entered as a false company with consumers’ trust

D. The Nonparty voluntarily recognized that the advertisement was made by the Nonparty, and that the Plaintiffs traded with the Nonparty. The Plaintiffs confirmed whether the Nonparty companies were reliable through the instant news article No. 1, indicated as a result of the Internet search, as well as key search advertising. The Nonparty’s filing an application for and requesting the publication of the articles to the Defendant was aimed at facilitating the △△△△△△△△△ in planning the fraudulent act from the beginning to December 5, 201. The purchase order of the gift certificates by △△△△△△△△△△△△△ was merely KRW 60 million until December 5, 2011, where the instant news article was published, and was merely KRW 1 billion from December 5, 2011 to December 20, 2011. Considering such circumstances, the Defendant’s duty of care, degree of violation, and details of the Nonparty’s fraudulent act, the Plaintiffs’ reasonable causal link between the Defendant’s publication and the Defendant’s fraudulent act and the Defendant’s wrongful act was recognized.

3. The above determination by the court below is just based on the legal principles as seen earlier. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the criteria for distinguishing news-type advertisements from pure advertisements, the duty of care of newspaper companies in relation to the publication, etc., the nature of liability for joint tort liability by aiding and abetting

4. Therefore, all appeals are 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.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Cho Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)