8
members were controlled by North Korea. The labor union and its members sued Pak for defamation
because Pak made them look as if they were directed by North Korea and they were a pro-North Korean
organization. They also named the Joong-Ang Ilbo Co. in their suit for libel in that its newspaper injured
their reputation by publishing a story about Pak’s public speech.
42
The Seoul District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in their action against Pak on ground that
Pak’s speech damaged their reputation. On the other hand, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’
charge against Joong-Ang Ilbo. While making no reference to the neutral reportage doctrine, the Seoul
District Court clearly turned to the American libel defense for its broad protection of the newspaper from
liability. The court first noted approvingly the objective reportage of the newspaper in publishing the
story: "The contents of the story published by the defendant newspaper are identical to what Pak said
during his public seminar. Accordingly, the story is viewed as true because it reported the objective facts
regardless of whether the statement was true or not."
43
The Seoul District Court then focused on the news value of Pak as a prominent public character
and on his speech as a matter of public interest. "Defendant Pak’s social standing and influence are
pervasive," the court said. "The fact that he made the controversial statement may affect the public
opinion to a great extent." The court also pointed out that the newspaper was neutral in not injecting itself
into one side or the other of the controversy. "In publishing Pak’s speech," the court stated, "the
newspaper conveyed facts as they were. It did not make any changes to the contents of the speech or
include its own opinions in the story." And the court analyzed the purpose of the newspaper in publishing
the story:
Instead of impugning the labor union and its members through Pak’s speech, the
newspaper’s story aimed to create a rational and fair public opinion by exposing the
views and thoughts held by some members of the social elite like Pak about the topic that
has become a focus of social attention. Thus, the newspaper’s act of running the story
relates to a matter of public interest and is designed to promote a public objective.
44
The Seoul High Court affirmed the Seoul District Court’s decision, following the district court’s
reasoning in toto. The Seoul High Court, for example, held that the Joong-Ang Ilbo story about Pak’s
speech was only for public interest because the speech concerned the basic order of the nation’s liberal
democracy. The high court further stated that the newspaper’s reporting without comment on the mere
fact that Pak gave the statement was truthful reporting when taken as a whole.
45
The rationale of the neutral reportage doctrine was more persuasive to the Seoul courts in the Pak
Convention