[1] Whether a press report is true as it concerns a factual assertion in order to file a claim for a corrective report under the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that in a case where Gap's broadcasting company stated that " Eul restaurant stored the chickens that should be distributed in the condition of cooling and used them after being supplied with 10 days of the expiration of the distribution period," and Byung who operated Eul restaurant claimed a corrective report against Gap's broadcasting company, the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to this part on the premise that "the broadcasting company's chill whose distribution period was indicated 10 days of the expiration of 10 days of the distribution period was frozen and chilled, and then stored the chickens in the packing room separately after the lapse of 10 days of the chill, and the distribution period was indicated as "12 months of the distribution period of the freezing and then stored in the packing room" in the broadcast of item (a) "the cream that was supplied to Eul restaurant by adding the freezing that had been stored in the freezing in the condition of freezing and supplied to Eul, other than the distribution period of the freezing storage period, was false on the premise that the lawful distribution period was not expired as a reason for this part

[1] Article 14(1) of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports / [2] Article 14(1) of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports; Articles 31(2)6 and 45(4)11 of the former Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (Amended by Act No. 14025, Feb. 3, 2016); Article 51(1) [Attachment Table 12] subparagraph 4(f) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1233, Dec. 31, 2015)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2275 Decided September 6, 2007

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee E-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Han & Lee LLC (Law Firm Han & Lee LLC, Attorneys Kim Il-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na200902, 2009019 decided November 20, 2015

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 14(1) of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (hereinafter “ Press Arbitration Act”) provides that “Any person who suffers damage due to a press report, etc. on a factual assertion may request a press organization, etc. to report a correction of the contents of the press report, etc. within three months from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the relevant press report, etc.” Thus, in order to request a corrective report under the Press Arbitration Act, the press report shall be deemed true as it concerns a factual assertion (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2275, Sept. 6, 2007, etc.).

2. The lower court determined to the following purport on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

A. The Defendant indicated the fact that “○○○ stored the chickens that the ○○○○ should distribute in the air condition as freezing, and used it after being supplied with 10 days elapsed from the distribution deadline,” in the broadcast of the item “shacked cackers for shacking shacks” (hereinafter “the broadcast of this case”).

B. The △△△△△△△△△△△ entrusted a chill, the distribution period of which is ten (10) days or more, saved in a freezing and supplied it to ○○○○○○ in a cooling condition. Since the period of storage in a cooling place was a total of one (1) days or two (2) days, the chickens supplied by ○○○○ was not due to the expiration of the distribution period and is not subject to disposal.

C. The portion of the instant broadcast that “○○○ used the chickens that ○○ was frozen and flown,” although it was true, the part that “○○○ used the chickens for disposal for which 10 days have passed since it was false that “○○○ used the chickens for disposal for which 10 days have passed since ○○○ was obligated to make a corrective report in accordance with the Press Arbitration Act.”

3. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following circumstances.

A. △△△△△△△△, a day after checking the quality of the chickens supplied to △△△△△△△△△△, a day, after being employed by the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○”). The △△△△△△△△△△△, a day, supplied the chiller in the condition of cooling and cooling at the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”). The ○○○ paid the price at the market price of the cooling and cooling machine at the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△○

B. On July 4, 2014, the Defendant reported to the effect that, in the instant broadcast, △△△△△△ was supplied with a cooling house with a 10-day distribution period indicated by the Dozor, △△△△△△△△ was freezing it, and it was operated 10 days after the 10-day period, and was separately packaged and packaged to ○○○○○ in a cooling condition. The content of the instant broadcast does not seem to be false.

C. (1) In the broadcast of this case, the Defendant: (a) reported the title of this case as “Wook for destruction of ○○○○○○○○○○”, and (b) disclosed the number of the blades of △△△△○○○○○○○○○○○○’s chill, including the cuckbbbs that should have been discarded after the expiration of the distribution period, and the cucks used for opening feed to be loaded on several cucks; and (c) reported the cuck processing status of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, including the cuckbucks, and the cucks used for opening feed. In the process, the cream processed at △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, “after the distribution period,” and then released the cream at will during three months prior to the expiration of the distribution period.”

(2) According to the above broadcast content, it can be deemed that the instant broadcast indicated the fact that ○○○○ used the chickens supplied by △△△△△ for the use of it after the expiration of the distribution period.

D. (1) On the other hand, △△△△△△△△, as seen above, frozen the chickens indicating the expiration date of 10 days, and stored it in the package after the lapse of 10 days and then sealed it, and indicated the distribution period as “12 months,” which is the distribution deadline of the freezing, on the package (hereinafter “instant △△△△△△△△”).

(2) However, Article 31(2)6 of the former Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (amended by Act No. 14025, Feb. 3, 2016); Article 51(1) and [Attachment Table 12] subparag. 4(f) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 1233, Dec. 31, 2015) provide, however, that in cases where a business operator intends to convert a refrigerating into a freezing product due to the matters to be observed by a livestock product processing business operator or meat packaging business operator, the Mayor/Do Governor or the head of the Si/Gun/Gu who has granted a business license shall report in advance the name of the items to be converted, weight, method of storage, place of storage, and date of freezing conversion into a freezing, and shall comply with the standards for labeling livestock products pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, and thus, shall be subject to criminal punishment as it constitutes Article 45(4)11 of the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act.

(3) Therefore, even if the process of the instant △△△△△△△△△ may fall under the freezing conversion of the frozen goods as stipulated in the above provisions, barring such circumstances as the △△△△ had undergone the reporting procedure as stipulated in the above provisions, it cannot be deemed that the circulation period of the “12-month” newly indicated through such voluntary processing is a lawful distribution period, subject to the statutory procedure.

E. The court below held that since △△△△△△’s custody of the coolant supplied in a freezing state immediately after the date when △△△△△△ was limited, the distribution period of the chickens shall be 10 months of the expiration date of the freezing distribution and 12 months of the freezing distribution period. However, it is difficult to find legal grounds to deem that it is permitted to arbitrarily change or extend the period of the previous distribution, disregarding the legitimate distribution period as stipulated in the above provisions, without going through legitimate procedures for freezing conversion as stipulated in the above provisions.

4. Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is determined as follows.

A. Unless there are other circumstances, even if the period of storage of a chickens in the process of the instant △△△△△△△△△, is only one day or two days, and the remainder of the period of storage is frozen, it is difficult to view that the period of distribution indicated above has not yet elapsed since the lawful distribution period indicated in the coolant in the cooling season has already elapsed during the process of storage, excluding freezing period without other legitimate procedures, and calculating it separately only during the period of storage in the cooling season.

B. The Defendant expressed in the instant broadcast that “△△△△△△△△△ was supplied to ○○○, while indicating the process of the instant △△△△△△△△△△ in entirety, and expressed that “the distribution period has expired” indicated in the cooling season supplied by △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and thus, it is difficult to regard this part of the instant broadcasts as false. Although ○○○ was unaware of the process of the instant △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, it was believed and supplied with the cooling cooling in the distribution period due to the lack of knowledge of the instant △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and it was not in a state where the instant chickens was under legitimate procedures for freezing conversion, there is room to be an issue of whether the instant broadcasts were false or exaggerated with regard to the part related to the statement of facts

5. Nevertheless, without examining the above circumstances properly, the lower court recognized that, with regard to the chickens which passed the process of the instant △△△△△△△, the period of freezing storage was added to the freezing storage period in addition to the freezing storage period, and determined that the instant broadcast on this part was false on such erroneous premise. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the distribution period and the procedures for freezing the freezing storage as prescribed by the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

However, according to the records, the Plaintiff alleged that “○○○○” among the contents of the instant broadcast was false, and claimed corrective reports, counterargument reports, and damages, and did not claim the falsity of the instant broadcast on the premise that, until the date of closing argument in the lower court’s trial, the Plaintiff did not claim the falsity of the instant broadcast until the date of closing argument. As such, the lower court, after remanding, clearly stated that the content of the broadcast alleged by the Plaintiff as false and the grounds for falsity, need to be deliberated on each of the above claims.

6. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below, and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)