[1] Grounds for and burden of proof of illegality of defamation in the press media

[2] Criteria for determining whether or not there exists a "reasonable reason to believe that a false fact was true in the media's defamation act

[3] The method of determining whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that broadcast content is true in the radio drama for traffic under the real name

[1] Even in a case where a media such as a broadcast runs an act of impairing an individual’s reputation by pointing out a fact, if the purpose is solely for the public interest, it shall be deemed unlawful if the alleged fact is proven to be true or not, or if there is any reasonable ground to believe it as true or to believe it. However, the burden of proof as to such act is limited to the media such as a broadcast, and the victim’s public figure, and the victim’s act of defamation such as a broadcast does not require proof from the victim’s actual bad faith.

[2] In determining whether there is a considerable reason to believe that a publicly alleged fact in relation to the act of defamation in the media such as broadcasting is true, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) whether a prompt and swift request is made; (b) whether materials such as the broadcasting are reliable; and (c) whether it is easy to confirm the truth, such as face-

[3] In the case of a traffic-related radio drama under the real name, it is easy for the general audience to accept the content as the fact, while the request for promptness cannot be said to exceed the general news report. Thus, the broadcast is more likely to have a high need to simply be based on reliable data, not on a rumor or a suppression. Thus, barring any special circumstance, unless there are other special circumstances, sufficient investigation activities, such as confirming the authenticity of the content of the material, which form the basis of the broadcast, through the party himself/herself or his/her surrounding people, should be carried out in advance. Thus, if the broadcast broadcast a traffic radio drama containing the content of defamation without such confirmation or investigation, it cannot be said that there is a considerable reason for the broadcast company to believe that the content was true.

[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, Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Act

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Da33828 delivered on May 28, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 1973) / [1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da36329 delivered on October 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3297), Supreme Court Decision 97Da24027 delivered on September 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3279), Supreme Court Decision 96Da36395 delivered on May 8, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 1572) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 85Da29 delivered on May 11, 198 (Gong198, 198; 1392) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 194Da36495 delivered on May 36, 1995 (Gong1964)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dom General Law Office, Attorneys Seo Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na50997 delivered on June 25, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Even in cases where a media, such as a broadcast, etc., injures an individual by pointing out facts, if the purpose is solely for the public interest, it shall be deemed that the actor believed the alleged fact to be true or, even if there is no proof thereof, if there is any reasonable ground to believe it, it is not unlawful. However, the burden of proof on such act is limited to the media, such as a broadcast which has engaged in defamation, and the victim’s person who is a public figure, and the burden of proof on such act does not require proof from the victim that the act of the media, such as a broadcast, was due to actual bad faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da36329, Oct. 11, 196; 97Da24207, Sept. 30, 1997).

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 제1심판결 이유를 인용하여, 그 판시 증거들만으로는 이 사건 드라마 중 1961년부터 1973. 11. 10.까지 국내 각 일간지와 방송사인 피고의 워싱턴 특파원을 지내고 그 이후에도 미국에서 언론활동을 하여 온 원고가 소외 1에게 취직을 부탁하여 경향신문 주미특파원에 임명되었다는 내용 및 대통령 박정희의 처인 소외 육영수에게 아부하는 듯한 발언을 하여 환심을 샀다는 내용과 기사자료를 얻기 위하여 미국으로 망명한 소외 1에게 민주주의의 수호자인 것처럼 아부하며 친밀하게 지냈다는 내용이 진실하다거나, 혹은 피고측에서 그 내용이 진실한 것이라고 믿은 데에 상당한 이유가 있다고 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다고 하여, 이 사건 드라마의 내용이 진실하고 그렇지 않더라도 피고가 진실하다고 믿은 데에 상당한 이유가 있다는 피고의 항변을 배척한 후, 원고가 공적인 인물로서 자신의 입장을 해명하고 방어할 수단을 가지고 있으므로 이 사건 드라마 방송과 관련하여 피고에게 명예훼손에 기한 불법행위책임을 묻기 위하여는 피고가 현실적인 악의에 기하여 이 사건 드라마를 방송하였음을 원고측에서 입증하여야 한다는 피고의 항변에 대하여, 다시 피해자가 공적인 인물이라 할지라도 언론기관에 그 사람의 명예를 훼손하려는 현실적인 악의가 있는 경우에만 제한적으로 명예훼손이 성립되는 것은 아니라는 이유로 배척하고 있다.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the requirements for establishing defamation liability against official seal or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The grounds for appeal as to this point are not acceptable.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In determining whether a publicly alleged fact exists in relation to defamation of the media, such as broadcasting, the determination should be made by comprehensively taking into account whether a prompt and swift request is made for the broadcast, whether materials, such as the broadcast, are reliable, and whether it is easy to verify the truth, including face-to-face with victims (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da24027, Sept. 30, 1997). In cases of graphic radio waves under the real name, it is easy for ordinary audience to accept the content thereof, while the demand for promptness is unreasonable compared to the general news. Therefore, it is more necessary for the broadcast to be made based on reliable materials, not just wind or suppression. Therefore, barring any other special circumstance, it should undergo sufficient investigation activities, such as verifying the truth of the broadcast through the party concerned or its surrounding material, and thus, it cannot be said that there is considerable reason to declare that the broadcast content was 1989Da298969, May 19, 199.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, upon citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that there was considerable reason to believe that the contents of the above broadcast broadcast broadcast broadcast are true even if the non-party 2 believed the truth of the above broadcast broadcast broadcast of the plaintiff or the author of the above author of the plaintiff or the plaintiff of the above author of the plaintiff of this case, and the non-party 2 believed that the contents of the broadcast broadcast of this case were true, since the broadcast of the plaintiff of this case, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2 believed the truth of the above broadcast.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the contents and degree of the obligation of a broadcasting author, or in violation of the rules of evidence. The grounds for appeal as to this point are not acceptable.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged the facts cited in the judgment of the court below after compiling the evidence adopted by the defendant, and acknowledged the facts as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and recognized the defendant's liability for defamation, on the ground that it is evident that the plaintiff's social evaluation against the reporter was considerably damaged due to the broadcasting of the drama in this case, since the broadcast of this case is judged based on the increase that the general viewers would make the contents of the broadcast to the general viewers.

In light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law in violation of the rules of evidence by recognizing facts without any evidence. The grounds for appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)