1. Overview of the Case
a. Parties Represented by Barun Law
Company A, a KOSPI-listed company, and its CEO B (plaintiffs)
b. Background
Company A was incorporated on January 12, 1994, and was listed on the KOSPI on November 6, 2024. B is the CEO of Company A and also a broadcaster. C and D (defendants) are journalists affiliated with a media company that publishes a daily newspaper. On February 25, 2025, they published an article titled "[Exclusive] A's CEO B Damages Not Only Farmland but Also Mountain Land… Violation of the Building Act," in which they stated, among other things, that "A was revealed to have inquired at a police station about the identity of the whistleblower who made a public-interest 에볼루션 바카라, exposing its deplorable corporate ethics" (the "Article").
c. Litigation Details
On March 5, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendants seeking damages for defamation. The defendants argued that the Article concerned matters of public interest and was based on a whistleblower's 에볼루션 바카라, and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the reported content was true, thereby negating unlawfulness. The plaintiffs countered that the content of the Article was unrelated to the public interest and was published with the intent to defame them, and that even if the defendants believed the content to be true, there were no reasonable grounds for such belief, such that the defendants' unlawfulness was not excused.
2. Judgment
The court partially granted the plaintiffs' claim for damages.
3. Grounds for the Judgment
The court held that the defendants' false reporting damaged the plaintiffs' reputation and credit, and that the defendants were therefore jointly liable to the plaintiffs for damages based on tort. Specifically, the court found that: (i) through the Article, the defendants stated false facts to the effect that the plaintiffs had committed illegal acts and had inquired at a police station about the identity of a whistleblower who had made a public-interest 에볼루션 바카라 regarding such illegal acts, thereby damaging the plaintiffs' reputation; (ii) considering B's public profile and the fact that Company A is a listed company, there was some room to view the Article as relating to the public interest; however, it was difficult to find that the defendants had reasonable grounds to believe as fact that "the plaintiffs had inquired at a police station about the identity of a whistleblower who made a public-interest 에볼루션 바카라."
4. Our Role and Arguments
We actively argued that the plaintiffs' reputation had been damaged by the statement of false facts and that no grounds existed to excuse unlawfulness. With respect to defamation by false statements, we pointed out that although the plaintiffs' requests for information disclosure were legitimate, the Article expressed strongly critical opinions toward the plaintiffs, and that numerous negative comments were posted after the Article was published. With respect to the absence of grounds excusing unlawfulness, we emphasized that the defendants reported content different from the whistleblower's actual 에볼루션 바카라, failed to conduct any objective investigation or verification, published a voluntary corrective article within two hours, and that the Article did not concern matters requiring urgent reporting.
5. Significance of the Judgment
This judgment reaffirmed the principle that where journalists publish defamatory content without conducting verification or investigative activities regarding the truth of the information provided by sources underlying the 에볼루션 바카라, they may be held liable for damages even if they subjectively believed the content to be true, as such belief lacks reasonable grounds. It thus reconfirms that journalists bear civil liability when they 에볼루션 바카라 defamatory content without conducting even basic journalistic investigation.
