Nasi-si Culture Complex

Representative;

Legal representative;

Pyeongtaek-si games

Representative Director;

Manager;

2. If the defendant does not perform the duty of Paragraph 1, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following the day on which he is obliged to perform the duty to the day of completion.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. One-fourth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The same period as the publication period of the original report, indicating in [Attachment 2] the title of the counterargument report;

In addition, if the title is charactered, it shall be indicated in attached Form 2 counterarguments, and the text of the article subject to the counterarguments

A report on the second counterargument shall be posted at the bottom of the literature, and after such publication, the news database shall be published.

to be searched after being kept in custody.

2. In a case where the Defendant did not perform the obligation under Paragraph 1 of Article 1, the Defendant shall implement to the Plaintiff.

Money calculated by the rate of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following the day to the day the performance is completed;

H. D. Payment

3. The defendant sent 20,00,000 won to the plaintiff and a copy of the complaint of this case from May 16, 2016 to the plaintiff.

5% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

(n)

A. In order to stabilize the supply and demand of agricultural products, fishery products, etc. through the projects for stabilizing the prices and improving the distribution of agricultural products, fishery products, etc. and to promote the promotion of farmers and fishermen's income and equal development of the national economy by fostering the food industry, the Plaintiff is a commissioned-type quasi-governmental institution established by the Government through full investment of 300 million won capital in accordance with the Act (see Articles 2 and 4 of the above Act, and Article 5 (3) 2 (b) of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions), and the Defendant operates the Internet site (http: / www) of "B", and operates an online newspaper broadcasting business.

B. On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant service”) conducted a bid for the said service on the national market under the title of “service on the actual condition of domestic distribution of imported kimchi” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant service”). At the time, two companies, including “0 universities and colleges industry-academic cooperation foundation”, participated in the bidding and submit proposals. After evaluating proposals submitted by the Evaluation Committee comprised of two internal personnel and three outside personnel, the Plaintiff selected an industry-academic cooperation foundation of 00 universities around August 2015 as the final service company.

C. On August 11, 2015, an industry-academic cooperation foundation of 00 universities (hereinafter referred to as “the person in charge of research”) selected the Plaintiff as the former as a person in charge of research, and conducted the instant services from August 11, 2015 to December 11, 2015. On December 111, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a report on the instant services to the Plaintiff, “the investigation into the domestic distribution status of foreign imported kimchi.”

D. In the process of performing the instant service, a dispute arose between a person in charge of research and some researchers, and the relevant researcher (hereinafter referred to as “the ○○○○”) has a problem of the Plaintiff’s overall management and supervision over the process of executing the instant service, and on March 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of information on all documents related to the instant service.

E. On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a non-disclosure decision under Article 9(1)5 and 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act with respect to the information disclosure claim by the informant, and the informant filed an objection against the non-disclosure decision on April 4, 2016.

F. The Plaintiff held a franchise disclosure deliberation meeting for further review of the objection filed under the foregoing clause, and the Information Disclosure Council, which was formed by five external committee members including two external committee members (one of whom is an attorney-at-law), has deliberated on the agenda of "in respect of all the documents related to the service of this case which was decided not to be disclosed on the grounds of internal review and light and business secrets by the agency," and "the contract bank law, the relevant statute, and the relevant provision" were disclosed, and the remaining documents were decided not to be disclosed.

G. On May 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) prepared and published an article as indicated in the original report as indicated in attached Table 3; (b) prepared and published an article as indicated in the item (c) as “research service costs; (c) but (d) as indicated in the original report as indicated in attached Table 4 as “the research service costs; (d) managed as of May 19, 2016; and (e) reported as of May 26, 2016, an article as described in the item (c) as “the research service costs,” but (e) supervised as of May 31, 2016; (e) prepared an article as described in the item (v) as “the title (v) of the original report,” “the title (v) managed as of May 31, 2016, but as of May 31, 2016; and (v) prepared an article as indicated in the attached Table 6-4 (v) to supervise the original report.

H. On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the correction and counterargument report regarding the instant news articles, but the Defendant rejected the claim. On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for conciliation with the Press Arbitration Commission for conciliation of the correction of the instant news report with the same content as attached Table 8.

I. During the conciliation and hearing process conducted by the Press Arbitration Commission, the contents of the article that the auditor did not run are objectively verifiable, and the article that raised issues concerning the corrective report, the request for information disclosure, and the bidding interruption are subject to the legitimacy in the procedural aspect, and the article that raised issues concerning the request for information disclosure. Therefore, the article presents a proposal of conciliation in which the counterargument report is published, and the plaintiff accepted it, but the defendant did not accept it.

(j) Accordingly, the Press Arbitration Commission deemed that there is a substantial reason for failure to mediate between the parties pursuant to Article 21(3) of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Press Arbitration") and decided on June 30, 2016 that the failure to mediate was made.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Gap evidence No. 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff 1:

Since the defendant has damaged the plaintiff's reputation by preparing and reporting the article of this case which stated false facts, the defendant has a duty to publish the counterargument report as shown in attached Table 2 on the article of this case, and as a result, the defendant has a duty to pay the plaintiff 20 million won and damages for delay.

(b) the defendant;

The defendant's report of this case on the article of this case in terms of social justice and people's right to know can not be accepted, and the plaintiff's request cannot be accepted.

3. Determination on the claim for counterargument

(a) Relevant legal principles;

Article 16 of the Press Arbitration Act provides that a person who has suffered damage due to a press report, etc. on a factual assertion may file a claim for a counterargument report on the content of the report with a press organization, etc. The claim does not require any intention, negligence, or illegality of the press organization, etc., and may file a claim without relation to the truth of the content of the report. The purport of the counterargument system is to provide an opportunity for a prompt and equal publication of an rebuttal statement without excluding time to waste a long and easy fact-finding in order to determine whether the content of the report is true or false (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da50747, Nov. 23, 2006).

However, pursuant to Article 15 (4) 1 of the Press Arbitration Act which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 16 (3) of the same Act, where the victim has no legitimate interest in exercising the claim for a corrective statement, the press organization, etc. may refuse the claim for a corrective statement. "Where the victim has no legitimate interest in exercising the claim for a corrective statement," the phrase "where the victim does not have a legitimate interest in exercising the claim for a corrective statement," refers only to the case where the victim's claim for a corrective statement is not related to the core of the original report, but only to the case where the victim's claim for a corrective statement is unsatisfy, and it does not contribute to the original purpose of creating public opinion that is right to correct correction (Supreme Court Decision 97Da2803 delivered on October 28, 1997).

In addition, a counterargument report under the Press Arbitration Act should be made a factual assertion that contains a counterargument to a factual assertion that has already been reported. However, if the contents of a counterargument report are merely an evaluation of an individual factual act or an opinion of a person who has reported, but cannot be deemed a factual assertion, and if the contents of a counterargument report are merely an opinion or legal judgment of the public tender offer, it is not allowed to make a counterargument report if it cannot be deemed a subject of a counterargument report.

B. Determination

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.

1) Among the instant articles, ① there is doubt in the process of selecting a service provider of the instant service business, ① the part that “the management and supervision of the process of the service business was insufficient,” ② the professor, who is the senior research institute for the service business, demanded the H Research Institute to send e-mail to the HA and return e-mail to the HA, and the return of the already paid research cost was revealed in the said e-mail, and the said e-mail was revealed to the relationship between ① and K professors.

In addition, in full view of the entire flow and the purport of the article of this case, the part that ① disclosed only some of the data favorable to the service, ③ ‘Falseness', and the part that ② does not prepare measures to prevent the reproduction of the results of the case through the audit of the service business, and is leading to the concealment of the case, not the preparation of the measures to prevent the reproduction of the results of the case through the audit of the service business.’ In full view of the whole flow and the purport of the article of this case, the Plaintiff’s work process in violation of the relevant regulations and procedures at the selection stage

On the other hand, 00 University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation was selected as a business entity of the instant service, and for this reason, it did not properly manage and supervise the instant service performance and did not make efforts to investigate the problems of the informants, thereby concealing the problem. The relevant part of the instant article may hinder the Plaintiff’s social evaluation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff may claim a counterargument report to the Defendant regardless of whether the contents of the instant article are true, and whether there was any objection or negligence against the news report of the instant article.

2) However, among the article of this case, regarding the internal accusation civil petition of the Institute participating in the research service, ① the portion of the article is merely an opinion of the defendant's evaluation that disregards the civil petitioner in a non-humanistic manner. It cannot be seen as a factual assertion that is subject to a counterargument report. This part of the article of this case does not allow a counterargument report, and the "service provider" in the article of this case did not know the news reporters about the progress of the research service cost. On the other hand, while the K professor did not call or call after the completion of the service, it is difficult to view that the part of the article of this case which recognized that there was no legitimate interest in seeking a counterargument report to the plaintiff. This part of the counterargument report is not allowed.

3) Meanwhile, with respect to the content and method of enforcement of a counterargument report, the court may appropriately modify and cite it so that the petitioner’s honor or rights can be recovered to the maximum extent that it does not go against the overall purport of the counterargument report sought by the claimant (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da50747, Nov. 23, 2006). The contents of the article of this case shall be stated in the number as shown in the attached Table 1 as seen above, as seen in the above. The method of claiming a counterargument report is not particularly unreasonable, and the method of claiming a counterargument report shall be determined as per the disposition.

4. Determination as to the claim for damages

A. The main contents of the article of this case are as follows: (a) the responsible researcher affiliated with the 00 University Industrial Cooperation Co., Ltd. selected as the service provider of this case falsely recorded a person who did not participate in the service performance as a researcher; and (b) the Plaintiff, who is in the position of a quasi-governmental institution in which the government invested the total amount of capital, along with the main contents of the article of this case, did not examine the problems of the process of performing the service performance against the Plaintiff, and did not endeavor to immediately examine the problems of the process of performing the service performance, and did not make any effort to disclose information to the informant, or criticize the Plaintiff, who did not know that there was no problem in the process of selecting the service provider.

Among the article of this case, the main contents of the article of this case concerning the plaintiff were raised about the plaintiff's improper response to coverage of facts and intentional facts. In light of the fact that there was an expression that the responsible researcher of the service of this case deemed to use the service of this case as an inappropriate law in the e-mail sent by the informant, and that there was a specific information about the act of the informant of the responsible researcher, etc., it is difficult to view the report of this case that the news of this case criticizes the plaintiff's response that there was no error in the process of management and supervision of the service of this case, on the ground that the news of this case was used as a somewhat negative expression, such as "non-competence," and it is difficult to view it as a tort against the plaintiff. Meanwhile, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant presented false facts about the plaintiff's employee's corruption on the grounds of the article of June 16, 2016, but the article of this case was not subject to submission of the article of this case.

B. Meanwhile, in a case where a media report is at issue, whether the victim caused by the media report is a public figure or a private figure, whether the report pertains to a matter of public interest, or whether the report concerns a matter of public interest, or whether the report concerns a matter of public interest, or whether it is related to a matter of public nature or social nature that the citizen ought to know objectively, and thus contributes to the formation of public opinion or a debate on public interest, and if the report is involved in a matter of public and social meaning, the restriction on the freedom of the media should be mitigated. In particular, since the government or a national organization cannot be a victim of a crime of defamation under the Criminal Act, even if the decision-making or the social evaluation of a public official participating in the performance of its duties can be somewhat lowered due to a media report mainly on matters related to the decision-making or performance of its policies by the government or a national organization, it cannot be said that the content of the report has considerably lost its reasonableness as a malicious or serious attack against a public official, it cannot be said that the report promptly constitutes defamation of a public official.

In light of these legal principles, the article of this case dealing with health team and the inappropriate nature of the plaintiff's duty performance is about the public issue of public existence, and it is insufficient to evaluate that the content of the article of this case's report of this case is malicious or considerably unreasonable, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this differently.

C. Sub-determination

Therefore, since the news report of this case by the defendant is within the scope that should be protected as a freedom of expression, it cannot be viewed as an unlawful act. Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim for damages on the premise of this cannot be accepted.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-in

Judges Shin Young-ri