民事上 公人에 대한 名譽毁損責任의 成立要件 - 相當性과 公人理論을 중심으로 -
The Requirement of the Liability for the Defamation performed to a Public Figure - Focused on a sufficient reason to believe and the theory of a public figure -
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The defamation means the behaviour decreasing a victim's reputation in the community. Occasionally, there is unlawful even in case the defamation is established. Even in case where the media harms a person's reputation by reporting factual matters, if it is only for the purpose of public interest as matters related to the public interest, then such act should not be viewed as unlawful where the truth of the stated fact was proved, or where an actor believed its truth or had sufficient reason to believe even though it was not proved. However, the media has the burden of proving the truth of the communication, and the victim does not bear the burden of proving actual malice just because the victim is a public figure. In the public figure is included the public official and the person which the interesting of the public becomes by his achievements, reputation, occupation,and etc. The public figure has a small room for his reputation comparing to the private figure. In case there is no 'actual malice', the theory of an actual malice formed at U.S. is the theory which doesn't bear the liability for defamation. Supreme Court doesn't accommodate equally this theory. However,actually the ideology for guaranteeing the freedom of expression is admitted. As follows, Supreme Court judges a limit between a person's reputational protection and the freedom of expression. “In compromising the freedom of the press for the sake of protecting a person's reputation, the standard should be formulated depending on whether the victim is a public figure or a private one,or whether the communication is about a public issue or a person's privacy;thus, in the expression of public interests, the restriction on the freedom of the press should be less strict and matters related to public officers' integrity or job performance should be subject to the citizen's control and criticism. Therefore, the function of control and criticism should not be easily restricted unless it is malicious or conspicuously unreasonable.”
Abstract
The defamation means the behaviour decreasing a victim's reputation in the community. Occasionally, there is unlawful even in case the defamation is established. Even in case where the media harms a person's reputation by reporting factual matters, if it is only for the purpose of public interest as matters related to the public interest, then such act should not be viewed as unlawful where the truth of the stated fact was proved, or where an actor believed its truth or had sufficient reason to believe even though it was not proved. However, the media has the burden of proving the truth of the communication, and the victim does not bear the burden of proving actual malice just because the victim is a public figure. In the public figure is included the public official and the person which the interesting of the public becomes by his achievements, reputation, occupation,and etc. The public figure has a small room for his reputation comparing to the private figure. In case there is no 'actual malice', the theory of an actual malice formed at U.S. is the theory which doesn't bear the liability for defamation. Supreme Court doesn't accommodate equally this theory. However,actually the ideology for guaranteeing the freedom of expression is admitted. As follows, Supreme Court judges a limit between a person's reputational protection and the freedom of expression. “In compromising the freedom of the press for the sake of protecting a person's reputation, the standard should be formulated depending on whether the victim is a public figure or a private one,or whether the communication is about a public issue or a person's privacy;thus, in the expression of public interests, the restriction on the freedom of the press should be less strict and matters related to public officers' integrity or job performance should be subject to the citizen's control and criticism. Therefore, the function of control and criticism should not be easily restricted unless it is malicious or conspicuously unreasonable.”
참고문헌 (34)
- 곽윤직, "채권각론, 제6판" (2004), 박영사
- 문재완, "언론법" (2008), 늘봄
- 박용상, "명예훼손법" (2008), 현암사
- 이은영, "채권각론, 제5판" (2007), 박영사
- 권영성, "헌법학원론, 개정판" (2009), 법문사
- 정종섭, "헌법학원론, 제4판" (2009), 박영사
- 허 영, "한국헌법론, 전정4판" (2008), 박영사
- 김경환, "정치적 의견표명에 의한 명예훼손에 있어서의 위법성 요건", 민사판례연구, 25 (2003), 민사판례연구회
- 김민중, "공적 존재·공적 관계와 명예훼손책임-대법원 2002.1.22. 선고 2000다37524 판결-", 저스티스, 통권 : 75 (2003), 한국법학원
- 김민중, "원고의 신분과 명예훼손법리의 적용-공인·사인의 구분과 관련하여-", 언론중재, 20(2)통권 : 75 (2000), 언론중재위원회
- 김선택, "언론보도의 자유와 인격권 보호-명예훼손소송에 있어 공적인물이론과 ‘현실적 악의(actual malice)’의 원칙을 중심으로-", 고려법학, (43) (2004), 고려대학교 법학연구원
- 김재협, "언론사간 명예훼손소송의 면책기준", 언론중재, 23(4)통권 : 89 (2003), 언론중재위원회
- 김재형, "언론에 의한 인격권 침해에 대한 구제수단", 언론과 법, 4(1) (2005), 한국언론법학회
- 문재완, "공인에 관한 최근 명예훼손 법리의 비교 연구", 언론중재, 24(1)통권 : 90 (2004), 언론중재윈원회
- 문재완, "다시 위축효과를 우려하며", 신문과 방송, 통권 : 381 (2002), 한국언론재단
- 박형상, "법률전문가가 본 위축효과론", 신문과 방송, 통권 : 380 (2002)
- 방석호, "명예훼손책임을 둘러싼 쟁점의 분석 -제764조를 중심으로-", 한국민법이론의 발전 (1999), 무암이영준박사화갑기념논문집 간행위원회
- 배병화, "명예훼손상 악의적이거나 현저히 상당성을 잃은 공격 -대법원 2003.7.8. 선고", ~ (2002)
- "다64384 판결-, ｢민사법의 새로운 전개｣ -한도정환담교수정년기념논문집-", ~ (2006)
- 성선제, "언론의 공인에 대한 명예훼손의 비교법적 연구. in: 한국언론학술논총" (2004), 커뮤니케이션북스
- 양창수, "명예훼손의 법문제에 관한 대법원판례의 동향", 언론중재, 25(1)통권 : 94 (2005), 언론중재위원회
- 이광범, "불법행위로서의 명예훼손과 그 구제방법 -대법원판례의 성과와 과제를 중심으로-", 헌법문제와 재판(하), 77 (1997), 법원도서관
- 이연갑, "실명보도와 불법행위책임- 대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2006다65620 판결(공보불게재) -", 법조, 58(6), pp.325~357 (2009), 법조협회
- 이은영, "명예훼손책임에서 언론보도의 진실성과 공공성", 민사판례연구, 12 (1996), 민사판례연구회
- 이홍권, "언론보도로 인한 명예훼손과 손해배상책임-책임요건으로서의 고의·과실(fault)을 중심으로 한 미국판례 연구-", 외국사법연수논집(7), 47 (1989), 법원행정처
- 전원열, "명예훼손에 특유한 위법성조각사유 -이른바 ‘상당성의 원리’ 일반-", 언론관계소송(한위수 편) 재판실무연구(1) (2007), 한국사법행정학회
- 전원열, "공인에 대한 명예훼손", 언론관계소송(한위수 편) 재판실무연구(1) (2007), 한국사법행정학회
- 한위수, "공인의 명예훼손소송 관련 국내판결의 경향", 언론중재, 24(1)통권 : 90 (2004), 언론중재윈원회
- 한위수, "公人에 대한 名譽毁損의 比較法的 一考察 - ‘現實的 惡意 原則(actual malice rule)’을 中心으로-", 저스티스, 69통권 : 69, pp.131~157 (2002), 한국법학원
- 한위수, "언론보도로 인한 명예훼손", 인권과 정의, (228) (1995), 대한변호사협회
- 我妻榮, "コンメンタール 民法, 第2版" (2008), 日本評論社
- 佃克彦, "名譽毁損の法律實務" (2005), 弘文堂
- 松井茂記, "変貌する名譽毁損法と表現の自由", ジュリスト, (1222) (2002), 有斐閣
- 右崎正博, "名譽毁損訴訟における損害賠償高額化と表現の自由", 法律時報, 74(9)통권 : 921 (2002), 日本評論社