The former legal representative of MBC ultimately lost a civil lawsuit against Representative Yoo Sang-bum, who raised allegations regarding the leak of materials related to Kim Keon-hee's 'currency' during a 7-hour conversation.
On the morning of the 20th, the Supreme Court's first division (Chief Justice Shin Suk-hee) confirmed the original ruling that deemed the plaintiff's judgment against attorney Kim Kwang-jung's damages claim against Representative Yoo to be a loss for the plaintiff.
In January 2022, Representative Yoo, who previously served as the Chairperson of the legal advisory committee of the People Power Party, reported Kim Keon-hee's 7-hour recording to the court, alleging that attorney Kim deliberately disseminated part of the court's injunction decision against broadcasting to reporters, and filed a complaint with the prosecution for violations of the Public Official Election Act. Attorney Kim, in response, stated that he had received the decision as the legal representative and only conveyed it to MBC, denying allegations of leakage and filing a defamation complaint against Representative Yoo along with a damages claim.
The first instance court ruled in March of the following year that 'Representative Yoo distributed a press release containing false information, thereby infringing upon attorney Kim's personal rights,' and ordered 'Representative Yoo to pay 7 million won in damages,' resulting in a partial win for the plaintiff. However, in July of the same year, the second instance court annulled the first-instance ruling, stating that 'the content of the press release is recognized as being for the public interest' and 'since there are substantial reasons to believe that its content is true or it falls within the permissible limits in light of the importance of the party's monitoring and criticism function, it cannot be considered illegal.'
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there were no issues with the original judgment. The Supreme Court noted that 'there was no misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding defamation and infringement of personal rights in the initial ruling.'