In a case where an online newspaper published by a media company A reported to the effect that “The President visited the government joint decentralization of the Sewol ferry, and the Cheongdae-man sent the presidential article site by requesting the President to “to comply with the President’s request when the President makes any provision,” the case holding that the media company A has a duty to make a corrective report, etc., on the grounds that the presidential office requested a corrective report, etc.

In a case where an online newspaper published by a media company A reported that “The President visited the government joint decentralization of the Sewol ferry, and the Cheongdae-man sent the site of the presidential articles by requesting the President to “to follow the President close to the President in the event of the provisions of the President” on the same day, the President, etc. requested for a corrective report, etc., the case held that the presidential office, which led the presidential joint decentralization provisions, as an institution assisting the President’s duties, has an individual relationship with the contents of the article, and the subject of the provision was “Cheong-dae,” and it is reasonable to deem that the article that the subject of the confirmation of the contents was proved to have not been true unless there is any new material supporting the existence of suspicion of suspicion,” and that the media company A has a duty to make a corrective report pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports.

Article 14 of the Act on Press Arbitration and Damage Relief, etc.

The Office of the President and four others (Law Firm Chump, Attorneys Doh-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

CFSA et al. (Law Firm Sod, Attorneys Jeong Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 12, 2015

1. Defendant CFSA Co., Ltd. within 72 hours from the date the instant judgment became final and conclusive:

(a) Of the correction report in the first part of the news sector of the early screen of the female news (htp:/www:/www.co.co.co..kr/) the size of the title indicated in the column of paragraph 1 of the [Attachment 1] of the [Attachment 1] “Cheong and Posnop other than the Cheong and Posnop S. S. S.co.co.m.r., 401656) is the same as the article title of the [htp]. The title of the above correction report is indicated within [htp]; if the title of the correction report is character, it shall be displayed for 72 hours, and thereafter, it shall be stored in the article DB so that it may be searched; if the title of the correction report is recorded in the article DB, it shall be marked in [S], “Cheong and Posnop other than the Cheong,” and if it is indicated in [Attachment 1] ht./ 600 p.m./N.

(b) The female news articles title [Stp] (Stp:/www.no.S.co.co. Ltd./nes/401694) of the same news article title [Stp], the title indicated in the item of paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1 of the correction report as shown in attached Table 1 is indicated on the upper upper upper part of the right part of the screen, and the content of the correction report as described in attached Table 1 is sufficiently read to enable viewers to view the contents of the correction report as a caption such as the above video caption, and the background of the correction report as the material for the report on the screen.

2. In the event that the defendant SPS Co., Ltd. fails to perform the duty specified in paragraph (1) within the above period, the defendant SPS Co., Ltd. shall pay to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to one million won per day from the day following the expiration of the above period to the completion date of the performance.

3. The remaining claims against Defendant CFSA Co., Ltd. and their respective claims against Defendants 2, 3, 4, and 5 are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between Plaintiff Presidential Secretariat and Defendant CFSA is borne by Defendant CFSA, and the part arising between Plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5 and the Defendants is borne by Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5.

1. Plaintiff Presidential Secretariat: In the event that Defendant CFSA (hereinafter “Defendant CFSA”) fails to perform its obligations under Paragraph (1) of this Article within the above period, it shall pay to the said Plaintiff and the rest of the Plaintiffs an amount at the rate of five million won per day from the day following the expiry date of the above period until the completion date of its performance.

2. In the event that Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5 fail to perform the obligation under Paragraph (1) of this Article within the above period, the above Plaintiffs and Plaintiff CFSA shall pay the amount at the rate of KRW 5 million per day from the day following the expiration date of the above period to the day the performance of the obligation is completed, and the Defendants shall pay the amount at the rate of KRW 20 million per annum from April 30, 2014 to the day the duplicate of the complaint of this case is served, and the amount at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day the copy of the complaint of this case is served.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Plaintiff Presidential Secretariat is a central administrative agency established pursuant to Article 14(1) of the Government Organization Act and in charge of assisting the President in the duties of the President. Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively, as the secretary general, the secretary general, the secretary general, the secretary general, and the secretary general for administrative autonomy in charge of the affairs of the President. On April 29, 2014, 00 ○○○ President visited the President at the time of visiting the secretary general, the secretary general, the secretary general, and the secretary general in charge of the affairs of the President.

2) Defendant CFSA is a media company that publishes online newspaper “mtp” (htp:/www. now.utnes.co.kn/), and Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 are the chief of the editing department, reporters, and reporters to which Defendant CFS belongs.

B. 1) On April 30, 2014, Defendant CBSia posted the articles listed in the attached Table 3 under the title “(S) of the “CBS EmbS Embsman” in the online newspaper news, and published the video together with the same title. The author of the above article is deemed the CBS Emsman News Special Gathering Team.

2) On April 30, 2014, Defendant CFS A posted the articles listed in [Attachment 2] under the title of the “Cheongho-man’s House” and “Saman’s Saman’s Saman’s Office and Saman’s Saman’s Saman’s Office” in the Internet News. The writers of the above articles are Defendant 4.

3) On May 12, 2014, Defendant CFS A posted the articles listed in [Attachment 4] under the title “On-the-spot Sovereigns Sovereigns” in the Internet News on May 12, 2014, and published the video together with the title “Sovereigns Sovereigns and Sovereigns” (hereinafter “the article of this case”). The author of the article of this case is Defendant 3 [the article of this case, including the articles described in paragraphs (1) through (3) and video of this case].

C. Defendant CBSA reported the article of this case to the effect that “○○○ President visited the joint fluorial decentralization of the government on April 29, 2014, and the Cheongdae-man sent the site of the presidential articles by requesting that “I will follow the conditions near the president when I would like to follow” from the joint decentralization on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the grounds for the plaintiffs' claims

The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant article damaged the reputation of the Plaintiffs by pointing out the false fact that “the President sent the site of the article,” and sought a corrective report or indirect compulsory performance against Defendant CFSA, and that Plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5 claimed damages against the Defendants.

3. Determination

A. Whether the plaintiffs suffered damage due to the news report of the article of this case (the person who suffered damage to the reputation)

1) According to Article 14(1) of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (hereinafter “Act on Press Arbitration”), a person who suffers damage due to a press report, etc. on a factual assertion may request a press organization, etc. to report the content of the press report, etc.

Here, “a person who suffers damage due to a failure to make a report on a press report” refers to a person who is clearly recognized as having an individual relationship with the content of the report, and who has an interest in making a report on a press report on the grounds that the contents of the report violate his/her personal legal interests due to an omission of the contents of the report. Here, in determining whether a person is “a person who is obviously recognized as having an individual relationship with the contents of the report”, the contents of other broadcasts or newspapers after the report shall not be comprehensively considered, and the meaning of the right to make a request for a report may not be determined. However, in light of the meaning of the right to make a request for a report, even in cases where the report is not specified through name, portrait, etc., and if a person is not a person with prior knowledge, the contents of the report itself can be determined by comparing the contents of the report with those of the report in order to make the report in question, and thus, the head of the relevant local government or an organization may request a correction of the contents of the report in question.

2) As to the instant case, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, on the images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 11, i.e., the defendant CFSia, through the article of this case, asserted that the defendant CFS: (i) "GGE had sent the site of the presidential articles by requesting Cheongdae to the Cheongdae-dae in the joint decentralization on the same day," and (ii) the president’s joint decentralization provision led the Plaintiff presidential office as an institution assisting the President’s duties; (ii) although the article of this case shows that the subject of the provision was "Government Department", "Cheongdae-dae," "Cheong-dae," and "Cheongdae-dae," the article of this case’s news report to the President, status of the President Secretariat, and the character of the presidential articles, etc., it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s general reader or viewers were identified as an independent official of the article of this case and its members. (iii)

Therefore, the remainder of the plaintiffs' claims except for the plaintiff Office of the President (Corrective Report, Indirect Compulsory Performance, and Compensation for Damages) are without merit. Thus, this study will examine only the claims for corrective reports and indirect compulsory performance by the plaintiff Office of the President.

B. Whether the article of this case is not true

1) According to Article 14 of the Press Arbitration Act, a victim requesting a corrective report on the contents of a press report on a factual assertion bears the burden of proving that the press report, etc. is not true. In determining whether a factual assertion is true, a victim may prove it by submitting sufficient evidence as to the existence or non-existence of a fact, if the existence or non-existence of a fact is proved not to exist in a specific period and at a specific place. However, if it is about the proof of non-existence of a fact that is not specified in a specific period and space, it is close to social norms, while it is easy to assert and prove the existence of the fact, and such circumstance is more easy to consider in determining whether a person bears the burden of proof. Thus, a person who actively asserts that there is no suspicion against a person who asserts that there is no fact that is not a suspicion can be raised can prove the existence of such fact by presenting the burden of proof, and the victim can also prove the falsity of the materials presented (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2002Do36529, Sept. 29, 2011). 202).

2) As to the instant news report, Defendant 1’s assertion that the instant news report was based on the news report No. 1 and No. 11, and that the news report No. 4 was based on the news report No. 1’s overall purport, i.e., the following circumstances that were acknowledged as having been based on the news report No. 1’s news report No. 4, and that the news report No. 1’s news report No. 1’s news report No. 1’s news report No. 1’ was based on the news report No. 5’s news report No. 1’s news report No. 4, and that the news report No. 1’s news report No. 1’s news report No. 1’s news report No. 1’s news report No. 1’s news report No. 2, and that the news report No. 3’s news report No. 1’s news report No. 4 was based on the news report No. 5’s news report No. s news report No. 1’.

(c) Contents, methods, and indirect enforcement of corrective reports;

1) In full view of the size, content and method of a correction report of this case, the method of reporting the article of this case, the method of expression and contents of the correction report of this case, and all other circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, Defendant CFSIS shall indicate the title in the first part of the news section of the initial news section of the No. 1 correction report of this case [S.C.S. S.S.S. [1] among the articles of this case, the size of the title in the [htp://www. S.C.W.S.//406] of the article of this case is the same as the title of the article of the No. 1 correction report of this case, and the size of the title in the same article of the No. 1 correction report of this case shall be indicated within 72 hours, and the size of the title in the [Attachment No. 1] of the No. 1 correction report of this case shall be stated within the same size as that of the No. 6. 3 of the correction report of this case.S. 1] and the No. 1/N. 6 of the same article [No. 1]. 4 of the No. Y.

2) In the event that Defendant CFSA fails to perform its duty to make a corrective report under Paragraph (1) of this Article, the Plaintiff Secretariat sought an amount of money at the rate of five million won per day from the following day after the deadline specified in Paragraph (1) of this Article to the completion date of its performance. However, in full view of the social status of Plaintiff CFSA and Defendant CFSA and the social status, the background of the report, the type of the news media, and the circumstances after the report, etc., it is reasonable to have the Defendant pay the amount of money at the rate of one million won per day if the above Defendant failed to perform its duty. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claims against Defendant CFSA by the President of the National Assembly against the Defendants are justified within the scope of the above recognition. The remainder of the claims against Defendant CFSA and each claims against the Defendants by the remaining Plaintiffs are dismissed on the ground that they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] Correction: Omitted

[Attachment 2] Omitted

[Attachment 3] Omitted

[Attachment 4] Omitted

Judges Kim Hong-han (Presiding Judge)