지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2008.12
- 수록면
- 379 - 445 (67page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Nowadays, all countries pursuing democracy ensure the securing of human dignity and freedom of speech and the press. These are counted as core values of government goals as constitution rights. The freedom of speech and the press means a freedom of expression in which people show their opinions, thoughts, and emotions without restriction. Criticism of others is also categorized under freedom of speech and the press. The Dignity of humans can"t be realized without protecting the reputation, a sort of personal right.
Meanwhile, criticism of others is sometimes connected to defamation, when freedom of speech conflicts with reputation.
In a case where excessive and immoderate expression results in defamation, the offender no doubt should be charged with a crime or compensation for damages.
Concerns about compensation for damages in defamation cases began on a large scale from the early 1980"s in Korea. Defamation consists of torts, based on civil code article 750. But The above article prescribes only general requirements of torts, while more concrete requirements and privileged matters on defamation had not been standardized yet by case or legal theories.
In the United States, defamation has been recognized as a sort of tort and the requirements of it had been decided in detail by courts. The legal theories that have been developed by the Federal Supreme Court to distinguish freedom of expression from defamation are detailed and subtle. The legal theories of defamation in America must have affected our legal ones considerably, so much that essential parts of decisions on defamation made by the Federal Supreme Court have been quoted by the Supreme Court or The Constitution Court in Korea.
In this article, the requirements of defamation (injury to reputation, publication, plaintiff and defendant, false facts, opinions, etc,), privilege, and liability that were developed in common law and case law in America have been researched in depth.
It is improper to accept fully the American theories of defamation in Korea because there are differences of legal systems and emotions toward the law between Korea and the USA, rooted from english-american law.
We have only two clauses about defamation. One is civil code article 750, which provides the general requirements of torts. And the other is civil code article 751, which provides liability for defamation. Except for these, we have no clauses that provide specific requirements and privileges. So, to embody the requirements and privileges of defamation would make the parties to a suit get foreseeability, and then it leads legal stability and contributes to development of legal theories of defamation.
In Korea, the requirements and exemption of illegality of defamation have been applied in civil law almost the same as in criminal law, so that if defamation were recognized I criminal law, the liability for defamation could be recognized.
The case law in America, developing the legal theories about requirements, privileges, and liability of defamation in solving cases, included diverse and concrete facts, pursued the valance of constitutional value, the freedom of expression and securing personal rights, are expected to help resolve defamation troubles of civil suits in Korea. In addition, when we think over our judgements by courts that have been upheld, suggesting some abstract contents of the requirements and exemption of illegality, the detailed legal theories of defamation in America are expected to help resolve several legal problems concerning requirements and privileges in the future.
Meanwhile, criticism of others is sometimes connected to defamation, when freedom of speech conflicts with reputation.
In a case where excessive and immoderate expression results in defamation, the offender no doubt should be charged with a crime or compensation for damages.
Concerns about compensation for damages in defamation cases began on a large scale from the early 1980"s in Korea. Defamation consists of torts, based on civil code article 750. But The above article prescribes only general requirements of torts, while more concrete requirements and privileged matters on defamation had not been standardized yet by case or legal theories.
In the United States, defamation has been recognized as a sort of tort and the requirements of it had been decided in detail by courts. The legal theories that have been developed by the Federal Supreme Court to distinguish freedom of expression from defamation are detailed and subtle. The legal theories of defamation in America must have affected our legal ones considerably, so much that essential parts of decisions on defamation made by the Federal Supreme Court have been quoted by the Supreme Court or The Constitution Court in Korea.
In this article, the requirements of defamation (injury to reputation, publication, plaintiff and defendant, false facts, opinions, etc,), privilege, and liability that were developed in common law and case law in America have been researched in depth.
It is improper to accept fully the American theories of defamation in Korea because there are differences of legal systems and emotions toward the law between Korea and the USA, rooted from english-american law.
We have only two clauses about defamation. One is civil code article 750, which provides the general requirements of torts. And the other is civil code article 751, which provides liability for defamation. Except for these, we have no clauses that provide specific requirements and privileges. So, to embody the requirements and privileges of defamation would make the parties to a suit get foreseeability, and then it leads legal stability and contributes to development of legal theories of defamation.
In Korea, the requirements and exemption of illegality of defamation have been applied in civil law almost the same as in criminal law, so that if defamation were recognized I criminal law, the liability for defamation could be recognized.
The case law in America, developing the legal theories about requirements, privileges, and liability of defamation in solving cases, included diverse and concrete facts, pursued the valance of constitutional value, the freedom of expression and securing personal rights, are expected to help resolve defamation troubles of civil suits in Korea. In addition, when we think over our judgements by courts that have been upheld, suggesting some abstract contents of the requirements and exemption of illegality, the detailed legal theories of defamation in America are expected to help resolve several legal problems concerning requirements and privileges in the future.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. Libel과 Slander의 구별
Ⅲ. 명예훼손의 성립과 관련된 법적 검토
Ⅳ. 헌법상의 보호
Ⅴ. 면책사유
Ⅵ. 손해배상과 취소권
Ⅶ. Privacy 침해와의 관계
Ⅷ. 맺는말
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문과 연관된 판례 (3)
-
헌법재판소 2005. 10. 27. 선고 2002헌마425 전원재판부
가. 청구인들이 주장하는 기본권침해가 이 법 조항들에 의하여 직접 발생하는 것이 아니라, 민주화운동관련자명예회복및보상심의위원회의 `민주화운동관련자` 결정이라는 구체적 집행행위를 통하여 비로소 발생하는 것이라면, 위 조항들에 대한 심판청구는 헌법소원의 요건을 갖추지 못하여 부적법하다.
자세히 보기 -
헌법재판소 1999. 6. 24. 선고 97헌마265 전원재판부〔기각〕
1.신문보도의 명예훼손적 표현의 피해자가 공적 인물인지 아니면 사인인지, 그 표현이 공적인 관심 사안에 관한 것인지 순수한 사적인 영역에 속하는 사안인지의 여부에 따라 헌법적 심사기준에는 차이가 있어야 한다. 객관적으로 국민이 알아야 할 공공성·사회성을 갖춘 사실은 민주제의 토대인 여론형성이나 공개토론에 기여하므로 형사제재로 인하여 이러한
자세히 보기 -
대법원 1998. 7. 24. 선고 96다42789 판결
[1] 문서제출명령에 응하지 아니한 사정 등을 종합하여 문서에 관한 상대방의 주장을 진실한 것으로 인정한 사례.
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Issues in Group Defamation
언론과법
2002 .12
-
A Study on the Recent Defamation Cases by Media in Korea
언론과법
2002 .12
-
국가의 명예훼손 소송에 대한 영미법적 고찰 : 서울중앙지법 2010. 9. 15. 선고 2009가합103887 판결의 분석을 중심으로
중앙법학
2011 .06
-
Examination Standard on Defamation of Public Figures
사회과학연구
2014 .08
-
현행 사이버 명예훼손죄 법리의 문제점 및 개선방안 관련 최근 논의 검토
형사정책연구
2009 .03
-
방송보도와 명예훼손 : 그 요건을 중심으로
방송통신연구
2001 .08
-
명예훼손죄의 구성요건인 ‘사실’의 의미
형사법연구
2015 .01
-
명예훼손죄 비범죄화에 대한 비판적 검토
法學論文集
2019 .01
-
명예의 보호와 형사처벌제도의 폐지론과 유지론 : PD수첩 광우병보도 수사에 즈음하여
서강법학
2009 .06
-
진실적시명예훼손죄에 대한 규범적 검토
정치커뮤니케이션연구
2018 .01
-
사이버명예훼손 피해의 민사적 구제에 관한 고찰
재산법연구
2010 .01
-
명예훼손 소송에 있어 ‘집단표시’ 문제에 대한 탐색적 연구 : 관련 판례에 대한 분석을 중심으로
언론과 사회
2015 .08
-
국제인권기준에 비추어 본 우리나라 표현의 자유와 관련된 제도의 개선방향 : 국가보안법, 명예훼손 및 모욕을 중심으로
서강법률논총
2012 .08
-
인터넷상의 명예훼손
비교사법
2004 .06
-
The Tendencies of Current Judicial Decision in Media - related Defamation, and Reality of the Media : Focusing on Case Studies from 2002 to 2005
언론과법
2005 .12
-
집단명예훼손소송
언론과법
2002 .12
-
Defamation in the Internet : Liability of Internet Service Provider
언론과법
2002 .12
-
공직선거법상 후보자비방죄에 대한 연구 : 표현의 자유와 선거의 공정과의 조화의 관점에서
법학연구
2013 .03
-
언론·출판의 자유와 명예보호 사이의 한계
재산법연구
2007 .01
-
사실적시 명예훼손행위의 규제 문제와 개선방안에 관한 검토
형사정책연구
2018 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
언론의 자유와 명예훼손 구제방법에 관한 연구
전찬희
,
지용수
한국콘텐츠학회논문지
2012
.10
명예훼손 관련 보도 특성에 관한 연구 : 동아일보, 한국일보, 한겨레신문의 2001년부터 2010년까지 보도를 중심으로
김경호
언론과법
2011
.06
프라이버시권ㆍ명예권ㆍ언론의 자유의 법적관계 : 표현의 진실성을 중심으로
손형섭
언론과법
2008
.06
프라이버시의 침해 : 우리나라와 미국 판례를 중심으로
전광백
법학연구
2011
.04
개인의 감정적 평온에 관한 불법행위 : 불법행위의 유형과 성립요건을 중심으로
현대호
한양법학
2008
.10
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-360-001271898