Decisions

All

TITLE	Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da52649 Decided September 2, 2011【Correction; Counter-Argument】 [full Text]
Summary
[1] Meaning of “a person who suffers any damage due to the falsity of a press report on a factual assertion” as defined by the former Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports; criteria to determine whether a person can be “clearly recognized as bearing individual relevance to the press report” and can thus exercise the claim for a corrective statement [2] Where the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (“MIFAFF”) requested of Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (“MBC”) to air a corrective statement against the investigative program “PD Notebook” regarding the episode titled “Is U.S. Beef Safe from Mad Cow Disease?”; the case holding that the MIFAFF possessed individual relevance to the contents of the broadcast as the agency that led the negotiations on import sanitary requirements for U.S. beef and beef products, and thus, had an interest in claiming for such a corrective statement should the contents of the broadcast be false [3] Method for the court to examine and determine scientific facts asserted in a press report when their truthfulness is not entirely verified at the current level of scientific development [4] Where MBC’s “PD Notebook” in the episode titled “Is U.S. Beef Safe from Mad Cow Disease?” reported that, “as about 94% of Koreans have MM-genotype, Koreans have about a 94% chance of contracting human form of mad cow disease upon consuming beef contaminated by mad cow disease,” the case holding that the said report is proven false [5] Criteria to determine whether a follow-up corrective report was made to such an extent as to negate the aggrieved party’s legitimate interest in exercising the claim for a corrective statement [6] Where MBC’s “PD Notebook” aired the episode titled “Is U.S. Beef Safe from Mad Cow Disease?” and then aired a follow-up episode titled “Did PD Notebook Distort the Truth?”; the case holding that the follow-up report in and of itself may not be deemed a corrective statement enough to negate the aggrieved party’s legitimate interest in claiming for a corrective statement [7] Criteria to determine whether the original report against which a corrective statement was requested may be deemed a factual assertion or merely an expression of opinion [8] Where MBC’s “PD Notebook” in the episode titled “Is U.S. Beef Safe from Mad Cow Disease?” reported to the effect that, “under the revised import sanitary requirements for U.S. beef and beef products, even if specified risk materials (“SRM”) were to be imported into the country or human form of mad cow disease were to break out in the U.S., the Korean government would not be able to take any independent measure without consultation with the U.S. government,” the case holding that the said report is to be deemed an expression of opinion to criticize the outcome of the negotiations to revise the import sanitary requirements for U.S. beef and beef products, and thus, reversing the judgment of the court below deeming the report a factual assertion [9] Where MBC’s “PD Notebook” in the episode titled “Is U.S. Beef Safe from Mad Cow Disease?” reported to the effect that, “it is doubtful whether the Korean government was aware of the actual state of affairs in the U.S. beef slaughter system when negotiating the import sanitary requirements for U.S. beef and beef products,” the case holding that the said report is a subjective evaluation that the government was not sufficiently informed of the U.S. system for slaughtering cattle when engaging in negotiations, and thus, reversing the judgment of the court below deeming the report a factual assertion on grounds that the report is to be deemed an expression of opinion for which a corrective statement may not be claimed

TITLE

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da52649 Decided September 2, 2011【Correction; Counter-Argument】 [full Text]

Summary

[1] Meaning of “a person who suffers any damage due to the falsity of a press report on a factual assertion” as defined by the former Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports; criteria to determine whether a person can be “clearly recognized as bearing individual relevance to the press report” and can thus exercise the claim for a corrective statement
[2] Where the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (“MIFAFF”) requested of Munhwa Broadcasting Corporation (“MBC”) to air a corrective statement against the investigative program “PD Notebook” regarding the episode titled “Is U.S. Beef Safe from Mad Cow Disease?”; the case holding that the MIFAFF possessed individual relevance to the contents of the broadcast as the agency that led the negotiations on import sanitary requirements for U.S. beef and beef products, and thus, had an interest in claiming for such a corrective statement should the contents of the broadcast be false
[3] Method for the court to examine and determine scientific facts asserted in a press report when their truthfulness is not entirely verified at the current level of scientific development
[4] Where MBC’s “PD Notebook” in the episode titled “Is U.S. Beef Safe from Mad Cow Disease?” reported that, “as about 94% of Koreans have MM-genotype, Koreans have about a 94% chance of contracting human form of mad cow disease upon consuming beef contaminated by mad cow disease,” the case holding that the said report is proven false
[5] Criteria to determine whether a follow-up corrective report was made to such an extent as to negate the aggrieved party’s legitimate interest in exercising the claim for a corrective statement
[6] Where MBC’s “PD Notebook” aired the episode titled “Is U.S. Beef Safe from Mad Cow Disease?” and then aired a follow-up episode titled “Did PD Notebook Distort the Truth?”; the case holding that the follow-up report in and of itself may not be deemed a corrective statement enough to negate the aggrieved party’s legitimate interest in claiming for a corrective statement
[7] Criteria to determine whether the original report against which a corrective statement was requested may be deemed a factual assertion or merely an expression of opinion
[8] Where MBC’s “PD Notebook” in the episode titled “Is U.S. Beef Safe from Mad Cow Disease?” reported to the effect that, “under the revised import sanitary requirements for U.S. beef and beef products, even if specified risk materials (“SRM”) were to be imported into the country or human form of mad cow disease were to break out in the U.S., the Korean government would not be able to take any independent measure without consultation with the U.S. government,” the case holding that the said report is to be deemed an expression of opinion to criticize the outcome of the negotiations to revise the import sanitary requirements for U.S. beef and beef products, and thus, reversing the judgment of the court below deeming the report a factual assertion
[9] Where MBC’s “PD Notebook” in the episode titled “Is U.S. Beef Safe from Mad Cow Disease?” reported to the effect that, “it is doubtful whether the Korean government was aware of the actual state of affairs in the U.S. beef slaughter system when negotiating the import sanitary requirements for U.S. beef and beef products,” the case holding that the said report is a subjective evaluation that the government was not sufficiently informed of the U.S. system for slaughtering cattle when engaging in negotiations, and thus, reversing the judgment of the court below deeming the report a factual assertion on grounds that the report is to be deemed an expression of opinion for which a corrective statement may not be claimed

Prev	Supreme Court en banc Order 2009Seu117 Dated September 2, 2011【Rectification of Register】
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17237 Decided September 2, 2011 [Defamation.Obstruction of Business]

list