2015Da252969 For a corrective statement, etc.

A person shall be appointed.

1. Cultural broadcasting of stock companies;

2. B;

3. C.

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2030761 Decided November 20, 2015

April 15, 2016

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If a press report deals with a factual assertion that may determine its existence by evidence (hereinafter referred to as a " factual assertion"), the victim who suffers damage due to the failure to verify the factual assertion or defamation may file a claim for a corrective report in accordance with Article 14 of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc.") and may file a claim for damages on the ground of tort.

Among them, the victim entitled to a request for a corrective statement should be clearly recognized that the content of the report is either designated in the relevant report or that there is an individual relation to the content of the report. Moreover, a request for a corrective statement is permitted in a case where a press report on factual assertion is not true. To determine the legitimacy of the request, it is necessary to first consider whether the original report, which is the subject of the corrective report, pertains to a factual assertion or simple expression of opinion. The distinction between the two must also take into account the ordinary meaning of the language used, overall flow, method of linking the phrases, meaning of the context, social flow, and overall impression given to the viewers (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da52649, Sept. 2, 2011).

Meanwhile, to recognize defamation through press reports requires a statement of specific facts that may undermine the victim’s social reputation and that the victim’s reputation should be identified. Here, even if the victim’s identity does not specify a person’s name, and an article or image itself makes it difficult to recognize the victim’s reputation, the victim’s identity can be identified as one of the parties indicating the news report in full view of the surrounding circumstances. Moreover, it does not necessarily mean that a statement of specific facts that may undermine the victim’s social reputation is directly expressed, but rather, it is sufficient to suggest the existence of such facts in light of the overall purport of the expression, and thereby, have the physical strength to the extent that it may infringe on a specific person’s social value or reputation. In addition, in the case of a television broadcast report, whether the content of the news report contains any content that impairs a specific person’s reputation should be determined based on a comprehensive consideration of the overall flow of the content of the news report, the composition method of screen, the ordinary meaning of phrases used, and the connection method of phrases used, etc.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed. (1) The Plaintiff (a) was engaged in the fashion model E of the cable television channel’s fashion model (hereinafter “C”) at the last session and was working in a foreign country as a fashion model (2) Defendant Culture Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) broadcast broadcast program, which is a F news news program, broadcast the broadcast report of “H” (hereinafter “the broadcast report of this case”) produced through Defendant B, and Defendant C is a person in charge of the production of the broadcast report of this case as a co., Ltd.’s annual investment. (c) The broadcast report of this case was recorded in the broadcast report of this case in the amount of 19 minutes and 30 billion won, which is a well-known entertainment, and was recorded in the broadcast report of this case (hereinafter “the broadcast report of this case”).

(4) The broadcast report of this case consists of the introduction of inducing viewers' interest in accordance with the part of time order, I's activities and marriage, I's part on I's identity and police investigation status, part on the video of the suspect in the relevant accusation case, part on the suspect in the relevant accusation case, part on the custody of the suspect in the relevant accusation case, I's reasons for the complaint, part on the reasons for other artist's private complaint case, part on the cause of celebrity of other performers, part on the cause of celebrity of celebrity, and part on the cause of celebrity, and part on the cause of celebrity protection of celebrity's privacy. (5) The broadcast report of this case is composed of the contents and contents of the report of this case, which are composed of video or voice, film, material, image, picture, motion picture, interview caption, background music, etc. (6).

① From 19 minutes to 25 seconds, 6 minutes 19 minutes 10 to 25 minutes, two women who threatened I with 'I' on the right side of whom the voice of the male copier, and the screen at that time, on the background of 1's photograph, in which 2 color coloring female images inserted with the water negative negative negative on the right side, are located below the lower part of the body, was displayed with a proceeding caption.

② In the event that the videos of a group’s musical video on the screen from 6 minutes 26 seconds to 34 seconds, a man is aware that one of the threatened women was a member of a group, and that he/she had any further impact on the screen, and “as he/she is a member of a group,” he/she is called “at the lower part of the screen.”

One person is a member of the K Sg Group J, and the progress assistant caption was displayed.

③ From 6 minutes 35 seconds to 35 seconds the screen is changed to coverage images related to entertainment reporters, and up to 6 minutes to 50 seconds the screen is continued. During that period, the screen was changed to the data photograph of J at Sasi, and it returned to coverage images.

④ From 6 minutes 51 to 7 minutes 15 to 6th 15, J’s photographs of virtual activity data and the drama data images funded by J appear in the order, and even if the re-satisfying re-satisfying re-satisfying the re-satisfying of the re-satisfying of the re-satisfying of the re-satisfying of the re-satisfy.

⑤ The broadcast report on the identity of another suspect in the relevant accusation case from the 16th to 22th of the beginning of the 7th 16th to the beginning of the 22th , in which the last 'E's data image is inserted.

6) The images inserted in this part of the broadcast are four models that do not identify who is an individual from 16th to 17th of the beginning of the 7th broadcast, and the entire screen of the fashion show (hereinafter referred to as “contest show image” in this case). From 7th to 22th of the beginning of the 7th to 18th of the 7th to 18th of the 22th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3.

7. The voice of this part of the broadcast refers to "the other person's name was known to be a model, but accurate information is the content of "the other person's name is not known to be a model", even though it is not known to the end from the time when the fashion image of this case is released and the model image of this case begins to the end.

④ Finally, the caption inserted in this part of the broadcast is composed of a caption as soon as possible on the left side of the screen, and as a whole, the caption "data screen" was displayed in Myanmar in the color rectangular type inside the screen, while the voice of the male is continued, another suspect added the screen "for another suspect" in the lower part of the screen, and the size of the above "data screen" was much much much smaller than that of the screen of the screen. (7) The other suspect was named as "the model L pattern" in the screen of the broadcast of this case after this case. In addition, it was found that the image of women was three times in color.

(8) From September 2, 2014, prior to the broadcast of the instant broadcast report, there was a report on two suspects of the instant broadcast case in several media. However, the content focused on J. The remaining suspects were only mentioned as '25 years old model M', '25 years old model M', '20 years old model M', '24 years old model M', '24 years old model M', '24 years old model M', and '24 years old broadcast. (9) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was a foreigner of high school at the time when the instant broadcast report was broadcasted.

3. We examine the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier. (1) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff either has an individual relationship with the contents of the broadcast report of this case containing the instant model or has specified it in the said image.

The instant model image was inserted into the instant broadcast report without indicating the Plaintiff’s name and source of image, as the Plaintiff’s image, walking a stage at the final meeting of “E”. However, in the instant broadcast report, the overall stage structure of “E” was turned out through the instant screen image inserted immediately before the instant model image, and the instant model image can be classified into the face, face, shape, color, walking attitude, head, and head, regardless of the Plaintiff’s fright treatment against the appearing. Considering these circumstances, considering the characteristics of the model model program, at least the Plaintiff’s surrounding persons or participants of the instant broadcast, the Plaintiff’s appearance of the instant broadcast model was sufficiently known.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is deemed to have either individually related to the contents of the instant broadcast report containing the instant model images or specified in such images. (2) Next, as to whether the expression of the part containing the instant model images among the instant broadcast reports constitutes a factual assertion that is not true against the Plaintiff, or a statement of specific facts likely to undermine the Plaintiff’s social evaluation.

In the broadcast report of this case, the suspect for whom the identity of the relevant accusation case is not verified, did not directly indicate the plaintiff by displaying a caption "data screen" on the left upper part of the screen while continuously emitting the model image of this case while disclosing that his occupation is a model.

However, in light of the contents of the broadcast in the preceding part of the model of this case, one of the suspects of this case revealed that J, which is the concurrent number of suspects belonging to the gal group, and shows the musical video images of the gal group, J's activity data photographs, and the dale material images contributed by J. In this flow, the rest of the suspect's identity is shown, and the other suspect's name continues to be shown at that point, and the other suspect's name is indicated at the center of the screen, and the other suspect's name is indicated as a model of "the image of this case," and it seems that there is no possibility of disclosure of the report's image of this case and the other suspect's image of this case, which is no more likely to be connected to the report's image of this case, as it shows that one of the suspects of this case is a suspect, and the other suspect's image is no more likely to be disclosed than the report's image of this case.

Considering that media reports mainly focused on J, and the fact that the remaining one suspect was only mentioned in the age and gender that is not consistent with each media organization with respect to the remaining suspect, general viewers are highly likely to accept the video of this case as a video to suggest the remaining suspect of the case in question.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the expression of the part in which the model image of this case was inserted among the broadcast report of this case is a factual assertion or a statement of specific facts that suggest that one of the suspects in the relevant accusation case is a suspect who does not have any relationship with the relevant accusation case in an indirect or round-up manner without merely mentioning or indicating the fact that his identity is a model, among the suspects in the relevant accusation case, when the expression of the part in which the instant model image was inserted is premised on the method of a general viewer’s contact with the broadcast report at a common level.

(3) Ultimately, the expression of the part in which the instant model images were inserted among the instant broadcast reports constitutes a statement of fact that could undermine the Plaintiff’s social evaluation or a factual assertion that is not true with respect to the Plaintiff, who has an individual relationship with the content of the report.

Nevertheless, solely based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected all of the Plaintiff’s claim for a corrective statement and a claim for damages arising from defamation on the ground that it cannot be deemed that only one woman other than J among two women who threatened I in the instant broadcast report could not indicate the Plaintiff or suggest the existence of such fact. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for establishing the right to request a corrective statement under Article 14 of the Press Arbitration Act and the requirements for establishing the right to claim a damages arising from defamation. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on

4. The lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin-chul

Chief Justice 1 of the District Court

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Jong-il