[1] The meaning of "the case concerning public interest" and the standard for determining the illegality of tort caused by defamation

[2] In a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages caused by defamation, the burden of proving the falsity of the alleged facts and the grounds for excluding illegality is allocated

[3] The standard for distinguishing whether a defamation expression constitutes a statement of fact or an expression of opinion or comment

[4] Time to determine whether a person who committed defamation has a reasonable ground to believe that the facts alleged by him/her are true and the scope of evidentiary materials

[5] The contents and standard of determining the illegality of defamation through the media and the publication

[1] Even in a case where a person’s reputation is harmed by a statement of fact through the press and the publication of the fact, if it is true and solely for the public interest, the act is not unlawful. Here, “the time when a statement of fact concerns the public interest” refers to the public interest when objectively viewed, and an actor also indicates the fact for the public interest. In such a case, whether the statement of fact concerns the public interest or not shall be determined by comparing and considering all the circumstances as to the expression itself, including the specific contents of the publicly alleged fact, the scope of the party against whom the statement of fact was made, the method of expression, etc., as well as the degree of infringement of reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression. If the principal purpose or motive of the actor is for the public interest, the principal purpose or motive of the actor shall be considered to be for the public interest even if there were other private interest motive.

[2] In a case where a person’s reputation is undermined by expressing facts through the media and the publication, when the plaintiff claims damages by claiming that the alleged facts are false or false evaluation as the cause of the claim, the burden of proof of the falsity shall be borne by the plaintiff. However, in a case where the defendant asserts that the alleged facts are true and solely relate to the public interest, and thus, it is not unlawful, the burden of proof as to the grounds for rejecting the illegality

[3] The defamation against another person may be conducted by a method of expressing a fact and may be conducted by a method of expressing an opinion. Whether the expression is a statement of fact or merely an expression of opinion or comment, or if an expression of opinion or comment is an expression of opinion or comment, the distinction between whether it expresses a fact which is a premise at the same time or not, at the same time, at the same time, should be determined based on the objective contents of the relevant expression, on the basis of the ordinary meaning of words used, overall flow, connection method of phrases, etc. In addition, it should be determined on the basis of the ordinary meaning of words used on the premise that the general public comes into contact with the expression at a common level at the same time, and the social flow, which is a background for a wider context or background, should also be considered.

[4] Whether the expression that defames another person's reputation is true or not, and whether the actor has considerable reason to believe it as true or not should be determined at the time of expression. However, even so, the authenticity and reasonableness at the time of expression can be determined by referring to the facts revealed before and after the expression, so evidence collected after the act of expression may also be used as evidence for the determination.

[5] Even in a case where an act of damaging another person’s reputation by publishing a fact through the press and the publication is committed for the public interest, if it is proved that it is true only when it is for the public interest, the act is not unlawful, and if, even if its authenticity is not proven, there is considerable reason to believe it as true, it shall be deemed that it is not unlawful. However, whether there is considerable reason to believe the contents of the expression as truth should be determined in light of various circumstances, such as the contents of the alleged fact, the evidence or materials believed as truth, the reliability and credibility of the fact, the easiness of verifying the fact, the degree of damage to the victim, etc., and whether the actor has conducted an adequate and sufficient investigation to confirm the authenticity of the contents of the statement, and the authenticity thereof should be determined in light of whether it is supported by objective and reasonable materials or reasonable grounds.

[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Article 307 of the Criminal Act / [4] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Act / [5] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15922 decided Dec. 22, 2006 (Gong2007Sang, 206) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 98Da31356 decided Feb. 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 458), Supreme Court Decision 98Do2188 decided Feb. 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 885) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 94Da29928 decided Aug. 20, 196 (Gong196Ha, 276) / [5] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35199 decided May 12, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1020)

Green Cross Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Shin Jae-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Jeon-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na76482 Delivered on August 30, 2005

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the third ground for appeal

Even in a case where a person defames another person by publishing a fact through the press and the publication, it is deemed that the act is not unlawful if it is true and solely for the public interest. Here, the term “the time when it is about the public interest” refers to the public interest when objectively viewed the alleged fact. In such a case, the issue of whether the alleged fact concerns the public interest shall be determined by considering all the circumstances as to the expression itself, including the specific contents of the alleged fact, the scope of the counter-party to whom the fact was published, the method of expression, etc., and comparing and comparing the degree of infringement of the reputation that may be damaged or damaged by the expression, and if the principal purpose or motive of the actor was distributed for the public interest, the principal purpose or motive of the actor shall be deemed to be for the public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15922, Dec. 22, 2006).

After finding the facts in full view of the admitted evidence, the court below found the facts in this case. Each of the following facts were found through HIV gene analysis, used for the purpose of identifying the cause of infection, and each of the interviews in this case was conducted for the same purpose. Each of the thesis and interviews in this case can reveal the causes of HeIV infections and help to prevent Eths in the future depending on whether it is true, and it is difficult to recognize that there are other purposes for the defendant in each of the thesis and interviews in this case, and the defendant's career, each of the thesis and interview in this case, each of the thesis and interview in this case, each of the contents in this case were used for identifying the cause of infections, and each of the interviews in this case was conducted for the public interest solely for treatment and prevention of Eths in the modern society. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. In the event that the reputation of others is harmed by the statement of facts through the media and the publication, when the plaintiff claims damages by claiming that the alleged facts are false or false as the cause of the claim, the burden of proof of the falsity shall be borne by the plaintiff. However, in the event that the defendant asserts that the alleged facts are true and are solely related to the public interest, and that there is no illegality, the burden of proof of the grounds for rejecting the illegality shall be borne by the defendant.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, the court below rejected evidence Nos. 25-1, 25-2, and 26, which are not attached to the non-party's blood transfusion, in determining the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff suffered damage due to the statement of the defendant's false facts, and determined that the contents of No. 1 of this case are not false by the evidence in the remaining judgment is just and acceptable. Furthermore, the court below's determination that the contents of No. 1 of this case are true due to the grounds for dismissal of illegality is not sufficient to recognize that the facts of this case are true. The court below's determination that the evidence of this case is not sufficient to acknowledge that the contents of No. 1 of this case are true and correct in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden

B. Defamation against another person may be conducted by a method of expressing a fact and may be conducted by a method of expressing a opinion. Whether the expression is a statement of fact or merely an expression of opinion or comment, or if an expression of opinion or comment is an expression of opinion or comment, the distinction between whether it expresses a fact that constitutes the premise at the same time or not, at the same time, should be determined based on the objective contents of the expression in question, on the basis of the ordinary meaning of words used on the premise that the general public comes into contact with the expression at the ordinary level of care, the overall flow, connection method of phrases, etc. In addition, it should also be determined based on the social flow, etc., which is a broad context or background of the expression in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da31356, Feb. 9, 199; 98Do2188, Feb. 25, 2000).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below judged that the contents of the instant case No. 2 suggest the contents of the instant case No. 3 that some blood-related patients were infected with HIV due to the instant blood product manufactured by the plaintiff, and that if indicated together with the contents of the instant case No. 1 or the contents of the instant case No. 3, it constitutes a statement of specific facts that could undermine the plaintiff's social evaluation, and further, the judgment that the contents of the instant case No. 2 can be recognized as true on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of

C. Whether the expression that defames another person's reputation is true or not, and whether the actor has a considerable reason to believe that it is true or not at the time of expression should be determined at the time of expression. However, even if it is determined at the time of expression, it can be determined at the time of expression by referring to the facts revealed before and after it, so evidence collected after the act of expression can also be used as evidence for its determination (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da29928, Aug. 20, 1996).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, we affirm the judgment below that the contents of this case 3 can be recognized as true in light of all the following circumstances, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal. It did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Even in a case where an act of damaging another person’s reputation by expressing a fact through the press and the publication of the fact is committed for the public interest, if it is proved that it is true, it shall not be deemed unlawful, and even if there is no proof, if there is a considerable reason to believe it as true, it shall be deemed that the act is not unlawful. However, the issue of whether there is a considerable reason to believe the contents of the expression as true shall be determined in light of the following: (a) whether the actor has conducted an adequate and sufficient investigation to confirm the authenticity of the contents of the statement in light of the following: (b) whether the actor has conducted an adequate and sufficient investigation in order to verify the authenticity of the statement; and (c) whether the authenticity is supported by objective and reasonable materials or basis (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da35199, May 12, 2006); and (d) evidence collected after the expression can also be used as material to recognize the reasonableness of the contents of the statement in this case.

In light of all the circumstances, including the fact that the blood of the non-party infected with HIV was used in the manufacture of the blood product of this case, and the defendant's HIV gene analysis result, which is the result of this study and the fact that the defendant was aware of the fact that the non-party's blood was in the course of performing the investigative activity at the time of the first epidemiological investigation, the court below held that the defendant believed that the contents of this case 1 were true and that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of this case were true and that there were reasonable grounds to believe it. The judgment is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as asserted in the grounds for appeal.

4. 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.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)