2015Na2030761 Demand for a corrective report, etc.

A

1. Cultural broadcasting of stock companies;

2. B;

3. C.

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Kahap40121 Decided May 15, 2015

October 16, 2015

November 20, 2015

1. The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to that part is dismissed in entirety.

2. All of the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim

(1) Defendant Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd.:

(A) On the first copy of the “D” program first broadcasted after this judgment became final and conclusive, the title of the “Correction report” continues to be indicated on the top of the screen in the size of characters such as the ordinary program caption, and, thereafter, on the screen, the attached Form 1 correction report is displayed in such a manner as to be sufficiently recognizable by viewers as to its contents, so that it has the proceeding read it at the same time as the progress of the original program;

(B) At the same time as the above (a), the title of the "Correction Report" shall be posted at the bottom of the "EF," which is entered in the part of the "MBC Internet homepage": http:/www/www.imbc.com", and the title of the "Correction Report" shall be posted at the bottom of the "EF" in the part of the "MBC".

(2) The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 100,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the day of complete payment.

Purport of appeal

【The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally is revoked. The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff the amount of KRW 80,00,000 and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 13, 2014 to the date of full payment.

[Defendants]

The text of paragraph (1) is as follows.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 and video (including paper numbers) by considering the overall purport of the pleadings.

[1]

0 The plaintiff is currently working as a fashion model in a foreign country after informing the name of "K" to the winners of J cable TV.

Defendant Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Cultural Broadcasting”) broadcasts ‘D' program as terrestrial broadcasting business operators that broadcast television.

○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B”) produced the above “D” program as an external producer and supplied it to the Defendant’s cultural broadcasting. Defendant C was in charge of the production of the said program as a chain of investment belonging to Defendant B.

[2]

0 The police applied for a warrant of detention on two women who threatened L Motion Pictures I. The suspicion was the charge of demanding 5 billion won when I wanting to spread a video image by dividing the sound book. Defendant B produced the “D” program dealing with the above case as Defendant C and supplied it to Defendant Cultural Broadcasting. The ○○ Defendant Cultural Broadcasting broadcasted the above program (hereinafter “the instant broadcast”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In the instant broadcast, one of the two women, who demanded 5 billion won from the female 2 women demanding a film distribution of 5 billion won by threatening a film distribution of 1, which is likely to spread the videos of another television program with the Plaintiff’s contribution, was broadcasted. This is to indicate false facts as if the Plaintiff threatened I.

Therefore, a corrective report is sought against the Defendant’s cultural broadcasting, and damages arising from defamation is claimed against the Defendants.

B. The defendants' assertion

In the instant broadcast, only one of the two women who threatened I was a model A, and there was no such a model A as the Plaintiff, and thus, it did not indicate any false fact.

3. Determination

(a) Correction reports and defamation;

1) In a case where a request for a corrective report on television reports is made, it should be premised on the fact that the content of the report pertains to the fact for the claim to be accepted, regardless of whether the claim is based on the Civil Act, on the ground of an unlawful act of defamation as claimed under the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports. Whether the content of the report contains “the assertion of actual facts” or how to distinguish it from the expression of opinion “an expression of opinion” should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the overall flow of the report, screen composition method, ordinary meaning of the words used and the method of linking the words, etc. under the premise that the general viewers have access to the broadcast report with ordinary care, as well as the overall impression given to the viewers (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da20181, Jun. 14, 2012). In order to establish defamation by media reports, there should be a statement of specific facts likely to undermine the victim’s social evaluation, and in this case, the overall expression of facts should be 201 to the extent of indirect and indirect expression.

B. According to the evidence No. 5 of the broadcast content of this case, it is recognized that the entire time of the instant broadcast was 19 minutes and 30 seconds, consisting of the following contents:

00:45 The caption "two women arrested by suspicion of intimidation" and, when two voices are escorted by the police, one of them "one of the threatened women shall be a member of a be group" and the voice H sing video.

03:36 The voice 05:37 that "The police shall complete an investigation and have been able to arrest two women who are suspected of intimidation...................................................... who

If two women are escorted by police, 06:22

Two women who threatened with I’s photographs, two picture picture photographs of women’s form, 06:29 to 07:16 “one of them shall be a member of a group of “A”, and a voice, voice, H’s singing, and smoke image.

07:16-07:22 "The other person is known to be a model, but accurate information is not known to him/her." The other criminal suspect "a form" refers to "a form of a model A", "at least 07:23, where the screen shock of the caption plaintiff."

The pictures of the caption I, the pictures of H, and the pictures of women’s shape 07:29 to 07:42 H, of “I and threatened women, etc.??????????????’s instant pictures?

08:12

H’s photograph, Do1:52’s photograph of picture picture of female shape, Do1:52’s caption, Do12:12’s caption, Do12:12’s caption, Do12:52’s sound, female, and Do12:12’s voice, which are escorted by the police, issued a warrant of detention on suspicion of attempted attack, and the voice “Seoul Central District Court Official Gazette”: The suspicion of the alleged crime is significant and necessary. The low is issued (the second woman’s warrant of detention) and the voice, and the voice.

Do12:45 Do Governor's photograph 13:07 Do Governor's photograph, H's photograph, and woman's photograph Do governor 16:01

I’s photograph, H’s photograph, a caption “N in Modio Terrorism case”, and a face-to-face 18:46 two women are escorted by the police by two women, and face-to-face 16:09, by the police.

(c) factual assertion and statement of fact;

1) The following examinations are conducted by each of the above recognized facts, Gap evidence 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence 1, and 2, and video (including paper numbers).

In the broadcast of this case, one of the two women who threatened I is a member of H, and one of whom is a producer of H’s photo, singing, and smoke screen was aired in the background screen. The broadcast of this case, "a model A", stating that only one woman other than H was known to be a model, but only information was not known to be a model," and three times the picture picture of women other than H were broadcasted in the broadcast of this case. In addition, if it is intended to verify the identity of one woman other than H, 2 women of this case were sent to the police, and if so, 4 women of this case’s screen screen was sent to the front 6th of the screen screen, 2 women of this case’s screen screen were sent to the front 6th of the screen screen: one woman of this case’s screen, other than the front 6th of the screen screen, and it was difficult to view the Plaintiff’s remaining 17th of the screen screen as a whole, unless it appears to have been known to be a specific woman or woman of this case.

Among two women who threatened I, one female other than H was known as a model and did not have specific identification, the content of this broadcast is indicated as data screen on the face of the Plaintiff’s appearance, and it is difficult to specify one female as the Plaintiff, and the name of the Plaintiff is 10 high school students at the time of the instant broadcast. However, from L prior to the instant broadcast, one of the two women who threatened I was considerably known as H from the Internet, and the other female is 25 years old model M. Meanwhile, in the instant broadcast, one female model was indicated as “H,” other than H, A, and one female student was not designated as the Plaintiff or one female student.

According to these circumstances, even if the broadcast of this case shows the display of a fashion show shown by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that viewers are likely to receive one female member other than H from the above face as the Plaintiff.

2) If so, among two women who threatened I in the instant broadcast, one female other than H cannot be deemed to have indicated the fact that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff or suggest the existence of such fact, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking damages from corrective report and defamation against the Defendants on the ground of factual assertion or statement of fact is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted the plaintiff's claim, the part against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

presiding judge's accident management

Judge Cho Ha-han

Judges Nam-soo