[1] The meaning of "a statement of fact" for the establishment of defamation by a press report, and the standard for determining whether an article of the press impairs a specific person's reputation

[2] Matters to be considered when determining the limits between the freedom of the press and the protection of reputation in cases where illegality is discovered in defamation by the media

[3] The case holding that, in a case where a member of the National Assembly (“A”) made a statement at the inspection site of the state administration that “The Daegu and North Korea, which was the inundation of the excessive democratization, was the total origin of the repair force, and even the fluoration of the fluorial acid, was not a suppression,” and the newspaper company (“A”) posted an article to the effect that “A sold the fluor of Daegu and North Korea in the inspection site of the state administration, as the fluoring of the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluor,” it constitutes defamation

[1] In order to establish defamation by a news report, a statement of specific facts must be made that may undermine the victim's social evaluation. The term "statement of facts" in this context is not necessarily limited to cases of direct expression of facts, but to cases of indirect and round-up expressions, it is sufficient to suggest the existence of such facts in light of the overall purport of expression, and thereby, if the media, such as magazines, carries an article of a specific person, it shall be sufficient that there is a possibility of infringing a specific person's social value or evaluation. In the event that the media, such as magazines, carries an article of a specific person, it shall be determined on the basis of the overall appearance of the article in relation to the overall purport of the article under the premise of the ordinary method of expressing the article, by comprehensively taking into account the overall appearance of the article, such as the objective contents of the article, the ordinary meaning of the used words, and the connection method of phrases, etc.

[2] Even in a case where the media has committed an act that defames another person by pointing out a fact, if the expression is solely for the purpose of public interest, there is no illegality if it is true, or if there is a considerable reason to believe that it is true. In addition, in light of the overall purport of the content, the term “actual fact” means a fact that is consistent with objective facts, and even if there is a little difference from truth or somewhat exaggerated expression in detail. In determining the boundary between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, the standard of review is different depending on whether the victim whose reputation is damaged is a public figure or a private figure, whether the expression concerns a matter of public interest, or a matter of pure private sphere. However, in cases of expression as to a matter of public and social meaning, restriction on the freedom of press should be mitigated.

[3] In a case where a member of the National Assembly made a statement in the inspection of state administration that "The Daegu and North Korea, which was the glag of the democratization, was the total origin of the repairing force, even fluoring the story that was the fluoration of the fluor, was not a suppression," and the newspaper company Eul posted an article to the effect that "A sold the grasing area in Daegu and North Korea, in the inspection of state administration, to the end that "A sold it at the inspection place, in the manner of repair," constitutes defamation, the case holding that the above article was about a public statement made by the member of the National Assembly at the inspection place, and even if the main contents of the article are consistent with the truth or there was a considerable reason to believe that the newspaper company Gap was true, and thus, even if the article damaged Gap's reputation due to the publication of the above article, it is not reasonable to claim for damages and for a corrective claim based on defamation.

[1] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 21 (4) of the Constitution / [2] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 21 (4) of the Constitution / [3] Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 21 (4) of the Constitution

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Da18925 Decided July 23, 2009 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64384 Decided July 8, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1683) Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2268 Decided September 6, 2007

[Judgment of the court below]

Daily Newspapers Co., Ltd. (Attorney Cho Chang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 22, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,00,00 and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from October 15, 2010 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. ② The title of the "statement of correction" as a box technician at the upper upper end of the part of the publication of the article of this case, except for the advertisement column of daily newspapers for which the first publication is not completed after the delivery of the judgment of this case. ② The title of the "statement of correction" as a box shall be 28th class , the main body shall be 18 class , and the main body shall be 18 class , and ③ if the defendant fails to implement the above paragraph (2), the amount shall be paid at the rate of KRW 5,00,00 per day from the day after the expiration of the above period.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a member of the National Assembly who serves as a member of the National Assembly Education Science and Technology Committee, and the Defendant is a corporation that issues a daily newspaper.

B. On October 14, 2010, the Plaintiff made a statement (hereinafter referred to as “instant statement”) as stated in [Attachment 2], stating that “The Plaintiff, as seen in the Daegu-si Office of Education on February 28, 1960 and the Civil Aviation Dispute on October 1946, Daegu-Gyeongbuk-do is in need of democratization in this country, and the Daegu-Gyeongbuk-do is in need of democratization in this country, and it is not a suppression that the Daegu-Gyeongbuk-do is in the total production of the remuneration force, or even in that sense, sees that it is a sign of several times with the terms degradation of the remuneration force” (hereinafter referred to as “instant statement”).

C. On October 15, 2010, the following day, the Defendant published an article in [Attachment 3] under the title of "Tangbuk City" several times, the Plaintiff and Non-Party 1 Council member Sagle", and an article in [Attachment 3] under the title of "City/Do Office of Education, the official title of the Office of Education, and the official title of the Gu Office of Education," and the article in [Attachment 3], which are similar to the newspaper of this case, on October 16, 201, five pages of the same day, five pages of the same day, Oct. 18, 2010, Oct. 19, 201, Oct. 19, 2010, Oct. 26, 2010, and Oct. 3, 2010, respectively, the Defendant published the following articles in the newspaper of this case on Oct. 31, 2010, respectively.

D. After publishing the Defendant’s news articles, Internet media, including New Daily and Asian news media, posted an article with the intent to cite or similar daily newspapers. On the Plaintiff’s website (www.ghil.net) on October 15, 2010, an article was posted to criticize the Plaintiff’s instant speech from around October 15, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 12, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The gist of the instant speech was that Daegu and Gyeongbuk-do was the critical view of democratization in this country in this country, and that the head of a democratization in Daegu and that the head of a democratization in Daegu should properly teach the history of a sponist democracy in the Daegu and Gyeongbuk-do region. Nevertheless, the Defendant posted an article that distorted the Plaintiff’s remarks in bad faith to the effect that the Plaintiff sold Daegu and Gyeongbuk-do as a repair spon city under the selected title.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to publish a correction report, such as the statement in the purport of the claim, as a disposition appropriate for restoring the plaintiff's reputation with consolation money for defamation.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Since the Defendant reported the contents of the instant report as it is, and also reported the background and purport of the instant report, it is difficult to deem that the said report contains any content that could impair the Plaintiff’s reputation. Even if the report contains any content that could impair the Plaintiff’s reputation, the said report is solely related to the public interest, and thus, it is reasonable to deem the Defendant’s illegality as there is considerable reason to believe the contents of the report as true or correct.

3. Determination

A. Whether defamation is established

1) Criteria for judgment

In order to establish defamation by news reports of the press, a statement of specific facts must be made that may undermine the victim's social evaluation. Here, "statement of facts" in this context is not limited to cases of direct expression of facts, but to cases of indirect or round-up expressions, it is sufficient to suggest the existence of such facts in light of the overall purport of the expression, and thereby, if the media, such as magazines, suggests the existence of such facts in light of the overall purport of the expression, is likely to infringe on a specific person's social value or evaluation, and if the media, such as magazines, carries an article of a specific person, whether the contents of the article harm a specific person should be determined on the basis of the overall appearance of the article in relation to the overall purport of the article, on the basis of a usual method in contact with the article, by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the article, the objective contents of the article, the ordinary meaning of the used words, and the connection method of phrases, etc., and therefore, the meaning of the relevant expression should be considered together in the social flow that was the background of the article (see Supreme Court Decision 208Da1925, July 23, 20098, etc.).

2) Determination

The Defendant posted the instant article, thereby indicating the specific facts that the Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that he made a statement about the political inclinations in Daegu and North Korea in the inspection place of the State administration using the expression “Maintenance Roster.” In addition, considering the entirety of the instant article, it would be said that the reader would have increased that the Plaintiff made an inappropriate statement at the inspection place of the State administration to the Daegu and North Korean residents. Therefore, the instant article appears to be sufficient to impair the Plaintiff’s reputation.

B. Whether the illegality is denied

1) Criteria for judgment

Even in a case where the press media harms another person’s reputation by pointing out a fact, if the matter concerns public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, it shall be deemed that there is no illegality in a case where the fact is true or there is a considerable reason to believe that the actor is true. In addition, in light of the overall purport of the content, the term “actual fact” in this context means the fact that the important part is consistent with objective facts, and even if there is a little difference from truth or somewhat exaggerated expression (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2268, Sept. 6, 2007, etc.).

In setting the limitation between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, the criteria for review are different depending on whether the victim who is damaged by the expression in question is a public figure or a private figure, whether the expression concerns a matter of public interest or belongs to a pure private sphere. If the expression in question concerns a matter belonging to a private sphere, the personality right, which is the protection of reputation, may take precedence over the freedom of press. However, in the case of expression on a matter of public and social meaning, the restriction on the freedom of press should be more mitigated (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64384, Jul. 8, 2003, etc.).

2) Determination

A) Public nature

The article of this case is to inform the people of the remarks at the inspection site of the plaintiff, who is a member of the National Assembly, and it is recognized that its contents are about public interests and their purpose is to promote public interest.

(b)the truth;

According to the above facts, the main purpose of the instant speech seems to be “the Daegu and North Korea, which had been the critical view of democratization, is whether it is not a suppression of viewing the story that it was a lux lux lux lux lux lux lux lux lux lux lux.” The contents of the instant article appears to be somewhat different from the Plaintiff’s speech, on the ground that “the Plaintiff sold the Daegu and North Korea area as the lux lux lux lux lux lux lux la

However, even if the plaintiff did not have any intention to sell Daegu and North Korea zone as remuneration, the non-party 2 member who was in charge of the inspection of the state administration at the time did not have the intention to use the term in selecting the plaintiff's speech, and did not pay attention to the plaintiff's speech. In other newspapers, such as the Gyeongbuk-gu and North Korea Scenic, and Yongnam Japan, it would be difficult to accept the plaintiff's opinion that the plaintiff's direct sale of the article to the same effect as that of the daily newspaper from the standpoint of "the plaintiff's opinion that the plaintiff would not have any way to sell the article in the same way as the plaintiff's speech" was held on October 15, 2010. After the plaintiff's second, it was hard to accept the plaintiff's opinion that the plaintiff's opinion that the plaintiff would not have any way to directly sell the article in the same way as the plaintiff's opinion that "It would be sufficient to accept the plaintiff's opinion that the plaintiff would have any way to directly sell the article in the same way as the article of this case's."

3) Sub-determination

The article of this case was about the public statement at the inspection place of the state administration of the Plaintiff, a member of the National Assembly. Even if the main contents of the article of this case are consistent with the truth or some parts are different from the Plaintiff’s truth, it constitutes a case where there are reasonable grounds for the Defendant to believe that it is true. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s reputation was damaged due to publication of the article of this case, its illegality is excluded, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages and the corrective statement

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] Correction: Omitted

[Attachment 2]: omitted

[Attachment 3]: omitted

Judges Cho Jong-Un (Presiding Judge)