본문 바로가기

추천 검색어

실시간 인기 검색어

학술논문

판례에 나타난, 명예훼손 소송에 있어서의 의견과 사실의 이분론

이용수 159

영문명
The Dichotomy of Opinion and Fact in Defamation Litigation represented by Cases
발행기관
세계헌법학회 한국학회
저자명
신평(Pyung Shin)
간행물 정보
『세계헌법연구』세계헌법연구 제9호, 23~60쪽, 전체 38쪽
주제분류
법학 > 법학
파일형태
PDF
발행일자
2004.06.01
7,360

구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

1:1 문의
논문 표지

국문 초록

영문 초록

In the U. S., traditional theory of defamation was firstly reconstructed on the constitutional ground by New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964. It's the beginning of constitutional law of defamation. The constitutional law of defamation has been gradually established by the following verdict in the Supreme Court and other courts. We may learn greatly by reviewing the American constitutional law of defamation. Because the new American theory attaches much importance to the freedom of press and expression and we think the protection of free press and expression is strongly needed in present Korean circumstances. It is the time to adapt the American theory to Korean society as long as it is not inconsistent to the Korean positive law order. When we will adapt the theory of a constitutional law of defamation to Korea, the first thing to do is to accommodate properly the dichotomy of opinion and fact which is one of the cores in the theory of constitutional law of defamation. In America they usually call 'opinion rule'. It has the meaning that the constitutional protection should be given to the expression of opinions. While there are many defects in the dichotomy of opinion and fact, we need to rely on this theory to extend the freedom of expression. Fortunately the Korean Supreme Court in Korea began to deliver verdict based on the dichotomy of opinion and fact. But it embarrasses us when we find the difference between the original American dichotomy of opinion and fact and that represented by Korean cases. Maybe Korean theory is less protective for the freedom expression than American theory. But we don't know the accurate standpoint of Korean Supreme Court to this problem. Hereafter the Korean Supreme Court have to express whether Korean dichotomy of opinion and fact rearly has a different meaning compared with that of American theory, if it's true, why the Korean Supreme Court attempted such a transformation of the theory. We are sincerely looking forward to the clear explanation in those points by the Korean Supreme Court.

목차

Ⅰ. 개설 - 헌법적 명예훼손법
Ⅱ. 미국에 있어서의 의견과 사실의 이분론
Ⅲ. 한국에서의 의견과 사실 이분론의 수용
Ⅳ. 결론
ABSTRACT

키워드

해당간행물 수록 논문

참고문헌

교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!

신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.

바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!

교보e캐시 1,000원
TOP
인용하기
APA

신평(Pyung Shin). (2004).판례에 나타난, 명예훼손 소송에 있어서의 의견과 사실의 이분론. 세계헌법연구, (9), 23-60

MLA

신평(Pyung Shin). "판례에 나타난, 명예훼손 소송에 있어서의 의견과 사실의 이분론." 세계헌법연구, .9(2004): 23-60

결제완료
e캐시 원 결제 계속 하시겠습니까?
교보 e캐시 간편 결제