〈Case in which the plaintiff, a former member of the National Assembly, sought damages and deletion of an article against the defendants, a media company and a reporter belonging to it, alleging defamation by a false article〉[Gong 2024Ha, 1747]

【Holding】

[1] The meaning of the truthfulness of a press report and the standard for recognizing it

[2] Where a person defames another by alleging facts through the press or publication, the requirements for illegality to be precluded, and the standard for determining whether the facts alleged concern the public interest

[3] In a case where Company A and B and others, reporters belonging to it, published an article stating, in connection with the ‘Kim Dae-jung Insurrection Conspiracy Case,’ that C, a former member of the National Assembly, had made a false confession in a military trial, as a result of which persons involved were sentenced to heavy punishments, and C sought damages for a tort and deletion of the article against Company A, B, and others, alleging defamation by a false article, the Court affirmed the lower court's judgment that did not accept the tort liability for damages arising from defamation or the claim for deletion of the article, in light of the following: although the article contained allegations of some false facts, C is a public figure and the content of the article concerns a matter of public significance; Company A, B, and others had reasonable grounds to believe the content of the article to be true; and as to the remaining portions of the article that were not false, it is difficult to find that the material parts were false in the overall context

【Summary of Decision】

[1] The truthfulness of a press report means that, when the overall purport of its content is examined, the material parts are facts consistent with objective facts; a report is not to be regarded as untrue merely because there are slight differences from the truth in details or somewhat exaggerated expressions. Moreover, even if there is some rhetorical exaggeration in the process of condensing or emphasizing certain specific facts in order to simplify complex facts for easy understanding, or in the process of embellishing the actual facts to attract public interest, the truthfulness of the report is recognized if, viewed in the overall context, the material parts of the reported content are consistent with the truth.

[2] Even where a person defames another by alleging facts through the press or publication, the act is not illegal if the facts are true and concern solely the public interest. Here, whether the facts alleged concern the public interest must be determined by considering all circumstances relating to the expression itself, such as the specific content of the facts alleged, the scope of the persons to whom the facts were published, and the method of expression, while at the same time comparing and considering the degree of infringement of the reputation that is or may be damaged by the expression. Furthermore, the determination must be made by comprehensively examining whether the defamed victim is a public figure or an ordinary private person; whether, among public figures, the victim is a person who is broadly the object of the public's attention and scrutiny, such as a public official or politician, or merely a person who has attracted attention within a limited scope during a particular period; whether the facts alleged relate to the victim's field of public activity or, having public and social character, constitute a matter of public concern in respect of which there is a need for public discourse; and whether the victim himself or herself had any involvement in bringing about the public attention.

[3] In a case where Company A and B and others, reporters belonging to it, published an article stating, in connection with the ‘Kim Dae-jung Insurrection Conspiracy Case,’ that C, a former member of the National Assembly, had made a false confession in a military trial, as a result of which persons involved were sentenced to heavy punishments, and C sought damages for a tort and deletion of the article against Company A, B, and others, alleging defamation by a false article, the Court affirmed the lower court's judgment that did not accept the tort liability for damages arising from defamation or the claim for deletion of the article, in light of the following: although the article contained allegations of some false facts, C is a public figure who served several terms as a member of the National Assembly, the content of the article concerns the past conduct of a public figure, which continues to require evaluation and verification, and the evaluation thereof, and, being set against the historical fact of modern history known as the Kim Dae-jung Insurrection Conspiracy Case, it is a matter of public significance; Company A, B, and others faced limits on access to objective materials for fact-finding regarding the investigation and trial process within the military justice system at the time, there was room for differing interpretations of C's statements at the trial date and the contents of his written statement depending on the perspective from which they were interpreted, and, although an article to a similar effect had preceded the article at issue, C did not actively respond to it, so that Company A, B, and others had reasonable grounds to believe it to be true; and as to the remaining portions of the article that were not false, it is difficult to find that the material parts were false in the overall context.

【Referenced Statutes】

[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Article 310 of the Criminal Act [2] Article 21(1) and (4) of the Constitution, Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 309 and 310 of the Criminal Act [3] Article 21(1) and (4) of the Constitution, Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 309 and 310 of the Criminal Act

【Referenced Precedents】

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da37524, 37531, January 22, 2002 (Gong 2002Sang, 522)
Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52142, March 23, 2006 (Gong 2006Sang, 713)
Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2275, September 6, 2007
Supreme Court Decision 2014Da28121, July 23, 2015
Supreme Court Decision 2014Da51855, October 12, 2018
[2] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15922, December 22, 2006 (Gong 2007Sang, 206)
Supreme Court Decision 2015Da33489, May 27, 2016 (Gong 2016Ha, 865)

(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2022Da251650, October 8, 2024 [Damages (Other)] > Comprehensive Legal Information, Precedents)