Supreme Court Decision 2002Da72194, June 27, 2003 [English Version]

(1) The Court held that, an intermediary, even if it knew or had reason to know of the defamatory material for 52 days, should not be held responsible unless a comprehensive analysis of the following factors point to such responsibility:  (i) the posting’s purpose, content, duration and method, (ii) the damages it has caused, (iii) the relationship between the speaker and the injury-claimant, (iv) the claimant’s attitude including whether rebuttal or takedown was requested, (v) the size and nature of the site posted, (vi) the degree of for-profit nature of the site, (vii) when the operator knew or could have known the posting’s content, and (viii) the technological and pecuniary difficulty in taking down, etc. Having said so, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court that imposed the liability for pre-takedown exposure.  

(2) The Supreme Court’s rather terse ruling sounds very generous, refusing to impose liability even upon knowledge of some indiscretion, especially when it was before the exemption provision was added to Article 44-2.  However, the ruling stands on the narrow fact that the intermediary here did comply immediately with the takedown request.