[1] Matters to be considered when establishing the limitation between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, and whether the restriction on the freedom of press is mitigated in a case where the relevant expression is against a media organization (affirmative)

[2] Requirements for granting provisional disposition such as prohibition of screening motion pictures

[3] The case dismissing an application for provisional disposition on the ground that, in a case where the film producer and the film supervisor provided money to the public relations agent for the program produced and broadcasted by the public wave broadcasting business operator, and the film film producer and the film theater, etc., including the video images produced in return for money from the restaurant to the restaurant in which they contributed a specific restaurant designated by them, and various broadcasting agencies, including the above broadcasting agencies, etc., advertisement agencies, etc., for the film theater and the film theater, etc., including the video products produced in return for money from the restaurant, and applied for provisional disposition such as prohibition of screening, etc. on the ground that the contents of the above documentary film cannot be deemed to be true, not as a malicious or considerably unreasonable attack, and the purpose of public interest is recognized

[1] In establishing the limitation between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, the criteria for review should be differentiated depending on whether the victim whose reputation is damaged due to the relevant expression is a public figure or a private figure, whether the expression pertains to a public concern or a purely private matter, etc., and in the case of expression on a matter of public and social meaning, the restriction on the freedom of press should be mitigated. In particular, in a case where the relevant expression is related to a media company, as the scope of enjoying the freedom of the press as a criticism against others is broad, the scope of the media company should be wide, and in a case where the media company has a medium that can self-feasible, it can prevent the formation of public opinion distorted due to erroneous information, and the guarantee of personal right of one media company is different, while restricting the freedom of press of the other media company, the monitoring and criticism function of the media company should not be easily restricted unless it is malicious or substantially lost.

[2] A prior restraint against an expressive act by the judiciary is permissible only when it satisfies strict and clear requirements in light of the purport of Article 21(2) of the Constitution prohibiting the guarantee of freedom of expression and censorship, even though the principle of prohibition of censorship is not applicable to the judicial branch. A provisional injunction such as prohibition of screening a motion picture constitutes a prior restraint against such expressive act, and as a matter of principle, prior prohibition against such expressive act shall not be allowed. In such a case, in a case where the contents of the expressive act are not true or the purpose of public interest is not solely for the sake of public interest, but for the sake of public interest, and in a case where there is concern for causing damage to the victim’s grave and significant and difficult damage, such expressive act is clearly obvious that the value of the expressive act is not against the victim’s reputation, and the necessity of prohibition is recognized as a valid and appropriate remedy therefor,

[3] In a case where a film producer and his representative provide money to a public relations agent for the program produced and broadcasted by a broadcast business operator and a specific restaurant designated by him/her among the programs, and where the film theater and a public relations agent for the program introduced by him/her included a certain part of the program, including the video recorded by him/her in return for money to a restaurant, and the video contents of the program introduced by him/her, and applied for provisional disposition such as prohibition of screen, etc.: the case holding that a specific restaurant can not be seen as the truth of the film production document whose basic and consistent subjects are presented by contributing money to the program, and that some of the above parts are not the contents of the program published by a public relations agent, etc. for the purpose of attacking and raising money to a certain extent that the contents of the program cannot be seen as the contents of the program, which are not the content of the program, nor can it be seen as the contents of the program published by a public relations agent for the purpose of attacking and raising money to a certain extent.

[1] Article 21(4) of the Constitution, Article 751 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 21(2) and (4) of the Constitution, Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 300 of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Article 21(2) and (4) of the Constitution, Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 310 of the Criminal Act, Article 300 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52142 Decided March 23, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 713), Supreme Court Decision 2006Da53214 Decided April 24, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 779) / [2] Supreme Court Order 2003Ma1477 Decided January 17, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 391)

Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Hong-Seng et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Non-investment Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Dong Partners, Attorneys Kim Jung-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. All of the instant applications are dismissed.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant;

【Purpose of the Main Claim】

1. On April 29, 2011, the respondent shall not screen the documentary mentor’s “Titor shock” image made public in the Jeonju International Film System through a theater or television, or make, sell, distribute, screen, or make public by other methods, such as DNA, video tape, cinema, etc.

2. The respondent shall pay 30,000,000 won per time of the offence to the applicant where the order under paragraph 1 is violated.

【Purpose of Preliminary Application 1】

1. On April 29, 2011, the respondent shall not screen through a theater or television, or produce, sell, distribute, display, or otherwise disclose by other methods, any voice or image, such as the list (attached Form 1), without eliminating any voice or image recorded in the list (attached Form 1) with respect to the documentary mentor’s video product, which is open to the Jeonju International Film System on April 29, 201.

2. The respondent shall pay 30,000,000 won per time of the offence to the applicant where the order under paragraph 1 is violated.

【Purpose of Preliminary Application 2】

1. On April 29, 2011, the respondent shall not screen through a theater or television, or produce, sell, distribute, display, display, or make public by any other means, a drama or television, in a state where the content as described in the list (attached Form 2) is not shown in the list at least 20 points in front and front at least 10 seconds each at least 10 points after the last day, respectively, on the basis of the documentary mentor’s image “Titor show” (attached Form 2), which is disclosed in the Jeonju International Film System.

2. The respondent shall pay 30,000,000 won per time of the offence to the applicant where the order under paragraph 1 is violated.

1. Case summary

The following facts are acknowledged according to the overall purport of records and examinations.

A. The Claimant is a public-frequency broadcasting business entity that performs the business of producing and transmitting broadcast programs, and produces and broadcasts spawn, such as “TV spawn” (hereinafter “TV spawn”).

B. The respondent Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent Co., Ltd.") produced a documentary mentor film called "Tator show" as a company engaged in the production, etc. of video works, and the respondent 2 is an internal director who is the representative of the respondent company and the supervisor of the Tator show.

C. The respondent sent 9,00,000 won to the Television Communications, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “studio”), a public relations agent of TV program with the applicant’s massage, and contributed a specific restaurant designated by the Respondent in the above program, such as “Sast of laver” and included it in the content of the temeat show.

D. In addition to the above contents, the respondent also included images such as the list in [Attachment 1] that the respondent received money from the restaurant that is introduced to the program by various broadcasting companies, including the applicant, publicity agency, etc. in the program, and contributed the restaurant to the broadcast (hereinafter “the video part in this case”).

E. Tatch shocks were shown in an international film product of electric poles on April 29, 201, and are expected to be shown in 10 film theaters across the country on June 2, 201.

2. Applicant's assertion

A. The respondent, while emphasizing that companies that receive money from the garnment show are ambiguously edited and that the restaurants provide money to the promotion agency and contribute money to the promotion agency program, etc., the respondent included the contents that the money delivered to the promotion agency through a part of the interview or the display room is ultimately entered into the production company or the broadcasting company, and expressed that the applicant receives money from the restaurant and contributes the restaurant to the promotion agency program.

B. However, the Claimant received money in relation to the satisfying program, such as TV, and made contributions to the restaurant program in return. Although the Claimant’s public relations agency director Nonparty 1 received money from the Respondent, this cannot be generalized in extremely exceptional cases caused by the Respondent’s naval gathering, and the Claimant or the external producer was not aware of the fact that the Claimant received money at all.

C. In particular, since the respondent failed to meet the requirements for contribution in the verification process for the applicant's contributed restaurant in the case of the restaurant which applied for contribution to the applicant's massage program to take film, the respondent was clearly aware that there was no fact that the respondent excluded the restaurant from the restaurant and contributed to the program in return for the applicant's receipt of money.

D. As such, the respondent not only failed to perform the duty of basic investigation and confirmation of facts required to produce documentary film, but also included contents that could impair the reputation of the applicant in the film, but also did not provide the applicant with an opportunity to make a counterargument. The film part of this case was produced by including it in the documentary show even though it was aware that the film part of this case was false.

E. If the film part of the instant case is openly shown in the film hall, there is a possibility that such falsity may be mistakenly perceived to the general public as if all of the aforementioned falsity is true, and the damage to honor or credit that the applicant may suffer is difficult to recover after the counterargument report or damage compensation.

F. Accordingly, the respondent seeks the same decision as the purport of the application.

3. Determination

A. Criteria for determination

(1) In setting the limitation between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, the criteria for review should be differentiated depending on whether the victim whose reputation is damaged due to the relevant expression is a public figure or a private figure, and whether the expression concerns public interests or concerns purely private matters. In the case of expression on matters of public and social meaning, restrictions on the freedom of press should be mitigated. In particular, in a case where the relevant expression is against a media company, as the media company has a wide scope of the scope of enjoying the freedom of press as a criticism against others, the media company can prevent the formation of distorted public opinion due to erroneous information. The guarantee of personal rights of one media company is different from that of the other media company, and the function of monitoring and criticism against the media company should not be easily restricted unless it is malicious or considerably unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da5345, May 23, 2006).

(2) In addition, prior restraint against the expressive act by the judiciary is permissible only when it satisfies strict and clear requirements in light of the purport of Article 21(2) of the Constitution prohibiting the guarantee of freedom of expression and censorship, even though the principle of prohibition of censorship is not applicable to the judicial branch. The provisional injunction such as prohibition of screening a motion picture constitutes prior restraint against the said expressive act, and as a matter of principle, prior prohibition against the said expressive act shall not be allowed. In such a case, in a case where the contents of the said expressive act are not true or are related to public interests, and its purpose is not solely for public interest, and it is not for public interest, and in a case where there is a concern that serious and significant damage to the victim is likely to be inflicted, such expressive act is obvious that its value does not go against the honor of the victim, and the necessity of prohibition is recognized as a valid and appropriate means, and thus, prior prohibition is exceptionally allowed only when it satisfies such substantive requirements (see Supreme Court Order 2003Ma1477, Jan. 17, 2005).

B. Whether prior prohibition is permitted

(1) In light of the above legal principles, in order to prohibit the screening, etc. of the heator show, etc. by the preliminary injunction decision of this case, the contents of the expression of the heator show are not true due to an attack that is malicious or considerably considerable to the applicant, which is not solely for the public interest, and are likely to cause significant and difficult damage to the applicant.

(2) However, the data submitted by the applicant alone is insufficient to recognize that the restaurant, which was introduced in the applicant’s satis program, did not have any money and contributed to the program, or that the respondent knew such fact and included the video part in the satisact, and there is no other data to recognize it.

Rather, according to the purport of the record and examination, the respondent asked the applicant's public relations agent business of TV program with the applicant's massage, whether he can contribute to the broadcast for the purpose of providing promotional expenses. The Respondent talks to the effect that the price is high due to a wide ripple effect of the applicant's massage, the respondent provided 9,00,000 won and requested the applicant to contribute to the above program. In fact, the above restaurant was introduced into the so-called "the so-called ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ e, regardless of whether a specific restaurant is actually “mn” or one’s massage s.

(3) However, the part of the video part of this case contains the part that can be misunderstood that a restaurant's entry of money into a public relations channel, an external producer, a broadcasting company, etc. is likely to mislead the applicant, etc. by expressing the subject of the payment of money in order to contribute a program for the introduction of massage, without showing the specific place, whether the restaurant is an external producer, and any place among the broadcasting companies. However, even though the contents of the video part of this case contain the part that is likely to mislead the misunderstanding by some ambiguous expressions, the mere fact that the contents of the expression of the smoke shock are included in the part that is likely to be misunderstanding cannot be deemed as an attack that is malicious or grossly unreasonable to the applicant.

(4) Furthermore, the content that the TV theater scambling program, such as the instant video part, contributed to the restaurant in return for money is accused of the reality that the public relations agent can scam and introduce money to the broadcast, even though the program for the introduction of scamblings, including TV, does not go through competitively, in the reality that the program for the introduction of scamblings is not open to the public in the public in the public, and furthermore, it is also acknowledged that the public interest purpose is to point out the various problems of the scamling program, which is being broadcasted as if the contents of the program are actually in the actual situation, and to correct these problems.

(5) If so, it is difficult to say that the content of the expression is not true or considerably unreasonable because of an attack against the applicant as a whole, or that the purpose of the expression is not solely for the public interest, such as the fact that the content of the expression is not for the sake of the public interest.

Therefore, the applicant's primary application of this case based on this premise is without merit.

(6) On the other hand, in case where a satisfactory provisional disposition is rendered against the respondent, such as ordering the respondent to conduct the prohibition of screening, etc. or direct correction, etc. of the contents thereof, the applicant's right has the same result as obtaining a final satisfaction. On the other hand, from the respondent's standpoint, the respondent's opportunity to close the original form of the existing creation itself is more likely to be obstructed to the general public without any opportunity to see the dispute in the case of the merits. Therefore, in order to take such satisfactory provisional disposition, it is required to provide an explanation to the extent much higher than that of ordinary preservative measures as to the right to be preserved.

In light of this point, it cannot be said that the video of this case contains any ambiguous expression that is partly misleading with respect to the applicant's possibility of receiving money, and there is no right to request the applicant to clearly disclose the fact that the applicant does not delete all the contents related to the applicant in the garment show or receive money in return for the contribution to the garmentment program, or where the applicant does not take such measures, it cannot be said that there is sufficient proof that there is the right to be preserved to seek the prohibition of the garment show, etc., and there is no other data to recognize it.

Therefore, there is no reason for the applicant to make each preliminary application of this case on the premise of this.

4. Conclusion

The petition of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit.

[Attachment 1]: omitted

[Attachment 2]: omitted

Judges Sung Sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)