Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Burden to prove falsity and the public interest defence in defamation
Supreme Court, Nov. 20, 2025, 2025Da213717 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a cleaner told fellow union members that her supervisor had demanded a bottle of liquor as the price for teaching her how to use cleaning equipment, and the supervisor sued for damages for defamation on the ground that the statement was false, must the plaintiff prove that falsity, and when is a statement of fact a true fact concerning solely the public interest so that it carries no unlawfulness under Article 310 of the Criminal Act?
Holding
The plaintiff, who pleaded that the statement was false, bore the burden of proving that falsity, and on this record the statement could not be found false. A statement of fact carries no unlawfulness under Article 310 of the Criminal Act only where it is a true fact concerning solely the public interest: objectively it must concern the public interest, and the speaker must have stated it for the public interest, judged by weighing the concrete content of the statement, the range of recipients and the manner of expression against the degree of harm to reputation. Where the speaker's main purpose or motive was the public interest, an incidental private motive does not defeat that position, and on these facts the statement that a payment was tied to job training concerned wrongdoing and integrity of public-service workers and could be assessed as a workplace bullying issue of concern to their group and to society as a whole.
Points at issue, verbatim
을의 발언이 허위라고 단정하기 어렵고 오히려 진실에 부합하는 것으로 볼 여지가 상당하며, 나아가 청소장비 교육 대가에 금품 제공이 결부되었다는 사실은 공무직 직원의 위법행위나 도덕성에 관한 것이고 이른바 ‘직장 내 갑질’에 관한 문제로서 소속 집단 또는 우리 사회 전체의 관심과 공공의 이익에 관한 사항이라고 평가할 수도 있으며
Unofficial English translation
it is difficult to conclude that B's statements were false and there is considerable room for regarding them as conforming to the truth; moreover, the fact that the provision of money or goods was connected to the cleaning equipment training as consideration concerns the unlawful conduct or morality of a public-service employee and may be evaluated as a matter of so-called 'gapjil in the workplace', and thus as a matter of the interest and public interest of the organization to which they belong or of our society as a whole; and
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
적시된 사실이 공공의 이익에 관한 것인지 여부는 그 적시된 사실의 구체적 내용, 사실의 공표가 이루어진 상대방의 범위, 표현의 방법 등 그 표현 자체에 관한 제반 사정을 고려함과 동시에 그 표현으로 훼손되거나 훼손될 수 있는 명예의 침해 정도 등을 비교·고려하여 결정하여야 하고
Unofficial English translation
Whether the stated facts concern the public interest must be determined by taking into consideration the specific content of the stated facts, the scope of the counterparts to whom the facts were disclosed, the method of expression, and other circumstances attendant upon the expression itself, while at the same time comparatively weighing these against the degree of infringement of the reputation that may be or has been impaired by the expression, and
Factors
- 제반 사정에 비추어 을의 발언이 허위라고 단정하기 어렵고 오히려 진실에 부합하는 것으로 볼 여지가 상당하며
- 청소장비 교육 대가에 금품 제공이 결부되었다는 사실은 공무직 직원의 위법행위나 도덕성에 관한 것이고 이른바 ‘직장 내 갑질’에 관한 문제로서 소속 집단 또는 우리 사회 전체의 관심과 공공의 이익에 관한 사항이라고 평가할 수도 있으며
- 설령 을이 양주를 제공한 이후에 청소장비 교육을 받지 못한 것에 불만을 품고 발설하게 된 측면이 있더라도 이는 부수적인 사익적 동기에 불과하다고
Unofficial English translation
• in light of all the circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that B's statements were false and there is considerable room for regarding them as conforming to the truth; and
• the fact that the provision of money or goods was connected to the cleaning equipment training as consideration concerns the unlawful conduct or morality of a public-service employee and may be evaluated as a matter of so-called 'gapjil in the workplace', and thus as a matter of the interest and public interest of the organization to which they belong or of our society as a whole; and
• even if there was an aspect that B made the statements out of resentment at not having received the cleaning equipment training after providing the liquor, this was merely an incidental, privately motivated reason
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2006. 12. 22. 선고 2006다15922 판결(공2007상, 206)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15922 decided December 22, 2006 (Gong 2007 Sang, 206)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2006. 12. 22. 선고 2006다15922 판결(공2007상, 206), 대법원 2008. 1. 24. 선고 2005다58823 판결(공2024상, 97), 대법원 2023. 11. 30. 선고 2022다280283 판결(공2024상, 97)
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
원고가 청구원인으로 그 적시된 사실이 허위사실이라고 주장하며 손해배상을 구하는 때에는 그 허위성에 대한 증명책임은 원고에게 있다
Unofficial English translation
Where the plaintiff asserts as the cause of action that the stated facts are false facts and seeks damages, the burden of proof as to such falsity lies with the plaintiff
Open question and revisit condition
Where the speaker's main purpose was private resentment at not being taught, what would show that the public interest nonetheless remained the main object of the statement?
A remand judgment of the Seoul Central District Court that finds the statement false, or that finds it not concerning the public interest on a fuller record, would require this entry to be read again. So would a later decision on who must prove falsity in a defamation claim, or on the unlawfulness defence under Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act and Articles 307 and 310 of the Criminal Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The supplied issues identify a general method for assessing public interest and also apply several circumstances to this disclosure, allowing emphasis on overall assessment or case-specific application.
제반 사정에 비추어 을의 발언이 허위라고 단정하기 어렵고 오히려 진실에 부합하는 것으로 볼 여지가 상당하며Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the speaker's main purpose was private resentment at not being taught, what would show that the public interest nonetheless remained the main object of the statement?” vs Independent “Will further proceedings establish the truth of the disclosure and the public-interest justification sufficiently to reject the damages claim?”
The primary asks how public interest can remain predominant when private resentment is the main motive, while the independent asks whether further proceedings will establish grounds to reject damages.
을의 발언이 허위라고 단정하기 어렵고 오히려 진실에 부합하는 것으로 볼 여지가 상당하며, 나아가 청소장비 교육 대가에 금품 제공이 결부되었다는 사실은 공무직 직원의 위법행위나 도덕성에 관한 것이고 이른바 ‘직장 내 갑질’에 관한 문제로서 소속 집단 또는 우리 사회 전체의 관심과 공공의 이익에 관한 사항이라고 평가할 수도 있으며Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2025 (2024Na53378), held that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff by telling others as though it were true that the plaintiff had demanded a bottle of liquor, although the defendant had not provided it in response to such a demand. It rejected the defendant's defence that the statement was lawful because it was for the public interest.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this reading could not be accepted. On the plaintiff's own written account and the phone call on the day before the liquor was handed over, the payment could be seen as tied to the equipment training, so the statement was not readily shown to be false and rather appeared to accord with the truth. It concerned wrongdoing and integrity of public-service workers and a workplace bullying issue of wider concern, and any resentment at not being taught after providing the liquor was at most an incidental private motive. The court below had made a judgment contrary to Supreme Court precedent within the meaning of Article 3(ii) of the Small Claims Trial Act on tort liability for defamation and on the grounds excluding unlawfulness, and the judgment was reversed and remanded to the Seoul Central District Court, all Justices concurring.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the plaintiff proves that the facts stated are false, because the burden of proving falsity rests on the plaintiff asserting the defamation.
- A statement whose main purpose or motive is not the public interest, since only an incidental private motive is set aside.
- A statement whose content is exaggerated or whose manner of expression is socially inappropriate, or which is first disclosed to others outside any public-interest setting.
Record verification notes
Set against the file the plaintiff's own written account of the episode, the phone call on the day before the liquor was handed over, the three-month disciplinary penalties imposed on both, and the police and prosecution outcomes, since the Court read the statement against those materials. Then check who heard the statement, their position and range, and whether the expression went beyond what those facts support, and confirm that falsity is not already proved, because that burden lies with the plaintiff.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 원고가 허위사실 적시에 의한 명예훼손으로 인한 손해배상을 구하는 경우, 적시된 사실의 허위성에 대한 증명책임의 소재(=원고) / 타인의 명예를 훼손하는 경우에도 위법성이 조각되기 위한 요건 및 여기서 적시된 사실이 공공의 이익에 관한 것인지 판단하는 방법 [2] 갑은 국립중앙박물관 시설관리과에서 청소업무 현장관리를 담당한 공무직 근로자였고, 을은 같은 시설관리과에서 미화 업무를 담당한 공무직 근로자인데, 갑이 자신의 관리·감독을 받던 을로부터 양주 1병을 제공받은 후, 을이 다른 노동조합원들에게 갑이 청소장비 교육의 대가로 양주 상납을 요구하였다는 취지로 말하자, 갑이 을을 상대로 을의 발언이 허위사실 적시에 의한 명예훼손에 해당한다고 주장하며 손해배상을 구한 사안에서, 제반 사정에 비추어 을의 발언이 허위라고 단정하기 어렵고 오히려 진실에 부합하는 것으로 볼 여지가 상당하며, 나아가 청소장비 교육 대가에 금품 제공이 결부되었다는 사실은 공무직 직원의 위법행위나 도덕성에 관한 것이고 이른바 ‘직장 내 갑질’에 관한 문제로서 소속 집단 또는 우리 사회 전체의 관심과 공공의 이익에 관한 사항이라고 평가할 수도 있으며, 설령 을이 양주를 제공한 이후에 청소장비 교육을 받지 못한 것에 불만을 품고 발설하게 된 측면이 있더라도 이는 부수적인 사익적 동기에 불과하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where the plaintiff seeks damages for defamation by stating false facts, who bears the burden of proof as to the falsity of the stated facts (= the plaintiff) / the requirements for unlawfulness to be excluded even in the case of defaming the reputation of another, and the method of determining whether the stated facts concern the public interest [2] A was a public-service employee in charge of on-site management of cleaning work at the Facilities Management Division of the National Museum of Korea, and B was a public-service employee in charge of janitorial work in the same Facilities Management Division; after A received one bottle of liquor from B, who was under A's management and supervision, B told other labor union members to the effect that A had demanded the offering of liquor as tribute in return for cleaning equipment training, and in a case where A filed a claim for damages against B on the ground that B's statements constituted defamation by stating false facts, a case in which, in light of all the circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that B's statements were false and there is considerable room for regarding them as conforming to the truth; moreover, the fact that the provision of money or goods was connected to the cleaning equipment training as consideration concerns the unlawful conduct or morality of a public-service employee and may be evaluated as a matter of so-called 'gapjil in the workplace', and thus as a matter of the interest and public interest of the organization to which they belong or of our society as a whole; and even if there was an aspect that B made the statements out of resentment at not having received the cleaning equipment training after providing the liquor, this was merely an incidental, privately motivated reason
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제750조, 제751조, 형법 제307조, 제310조, 민사소송법 제288조[증명책임] / [2] 민법 제750조, 제751조, 형법 제307조, 제310조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger