• Korean journal of communication and information
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.150-191
• /
• 2007

Defamation lawsuits of public figures against media have been an issue since Roh government set in. Dissension between the government and media has probably acted as the key factor on this problem. Accordingly, arguments on the defamation lawsuits of public figures occurred the political issues such as opposition between the Progressive and the Conservative Parties or between the ins and the outs and showed the limits to suggest an appropriate judgment or solution. This study will analyze how the court makes its judgement on their rights and the limits by understanding the characteristic and the problem of defamation lawsuits made by senior government officials including a politician, the government, the president, and etc. As results, the defamation lawsuits of politicians and senior government officials showed specially noteworthy matters in salvation (damage suits), the amount claimed, court costs, ratio of winning lawsuits, and etc. The result on the tendency of the court decision showed the following matters in confusion: it holds the media responsible for the burden of proof by applying the inappropriate criterion; The applied laws, especially in the inferior court decision, do not show the consistency of the burden of proof between the misconception/ intention (malice)/ accident/ purpose of slander on the legal principles of public figures. Therefore, this study suggests the court to apply an appropriate law, let alone regulating the Anti-SLAPP law, so that it curtails the rights of public figures; limits the salvation of damage suit; and protects the right only in the case of false accusation by applying the existing law of "the Protection of the Deceased's Defamation Law." In order to dissolve the confusion when applying the laws on the public figures, the study insists the court to positively apply the Constitutional Court made criterion on "people" and "content." The study also insists to distinguish "intention(malice)," "accident," and "purpose of slander" and variant sorts of the burden of proof should be applied to each.