Daegu Dong-gu 00

Legal representative Kim Sung-ho

Litigation Performers 00, South 00

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 95% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder of 5% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

It shall pay 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment.

A. On May 31, 2006, the Plaintiff was a member of the Daegu Metropolitan City Dong-gu Council in the election of the local government which was opened on May 31, 2006, and submitted an application for registration of the candidate to the competent election commission by May 17, 2006, along with the career broadcasting Plaintiff, and did not submit the career broadcasting Plaintiff even though it was accompanied by the career broadcasting Plaintiff.

B. On May 2, 2006, the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Dong-gu Election Commission") under Defendant-affiliated with the Plaintiff prepared a career broadcast Plaintiff on the basis of the application for candidate registration on May 22, 2006, and the Plaintiff prepared a career broadcast Plaintiff against the Plaintiff, which is No. 7 of the election district sign, and sent the Plaintiff’s final academic background to the broadcasting company, CMB Daegu Dong-dong Broadcasting (hereinafter referred to as the “Dong-dong Broadcasting”), a broadcasting company, a broadcasting company (hereinafter referred to as the “Dong-gu Cable Broadcasting”) by preparing a career broadcast Plaintiff on the ground of the candidate’s registration application on May 2, 2006.

C. On May 27, 2006, as a career broadcasting plaintiff drawn up by the Dong-gu Line Line, Dong-based broadcast was 00: 00; 12: 00; 19: 00; 3: May 28, 2006; 09:0, 12:00; 12:00; 19: 00; 3: 09 on May 29, 2006: 00; 12:00; 12: 100, 15: 30: 19: 10: 4: 00; 09: 00: 00 on May 30, 2006; 11:5:00; and 3:5.

D. On May 30, 2006, the plaintiff's side confirmed that the candidate's career broadcasting of the same group broadcasted in 00 was wrong and raised an objection on the Dong line. On May 30, 2006, the Dong line group confirmed that there was an error in the plaintiff's career-based transmission plaintiff against the plaintiff, and immediately prepared a new career-based broadcasting plaintiff revised to the Do department in the Do department in the Do department in the Daegu National University, Daegu National University, and requested the correction broadcasting while sending it to the Dong line and the Dong line.

E. On May 30, 2006, Dongbu Broadcasting first cancelled the work experience broadcasting scheduled to 00: 15:30 on the same day; the work experience broadcasting scheduled to 19:10 on the same day; as corrected; in addition, the caption broadcasting, including voice instructions, was corrected to 3 years in the middle of the last work experience broadcasting of the members of the Gu Council No. 7 of the Dong Council, which was corrected to 3 years in the middle of the last work experience broadcasting of the members of the Gu Council; and the Dongbu Cable broadcasted on two occasions. Since the previous work experience broadcasting was completed on May 30, 2006, it was corrected to 3 years in the middle of the last work experience broadcasting of the members of the Gu Council No. 7 of the Gu Council, which was corrected to 3 years in the middle of the last work experience broadcasting of the members of the Gu Council.

F. As a result of the ballot counting on the election of the election district "Ba" on May 31, 2006, the plaintiff obtained 22,789 marks in total valid votes, 9,979 marks in 100 marks in 22,426 of the total valid votes, 9,979 marks in 100 marks in 22,789 marks in 19,979 marks in 200 candidates in Nara, 614 marks in 1,868 marks in 1,868 in Nara, and 176 marks in 19.7% in 206, and the plaintiff got 4 marks in 19.7% in 200.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and its determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The Plaintiff discovered any error in the candidate’s career broadcast, that is, demanded correction on each club line. However, the Eastern Line broadcasted the Plaintiff’s five-time broadcast campaign in five times among the broadcast campaign, and broadcasted by modifying it on the day immediately before the election day.

② As a result, the Plaintiff had been aware that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the educational background that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware that he had the academic background, and that he had the Plaintiff’s final academic background that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the academic background that he had the academic background that he had already been elected twice was the result of the Plaintiff’s success in the election by withdrawing the support of the Plaintiff.

③ Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the election expenses of KRW 42,920,045 (including deposit money of KRW 2 million) and damages for mental distress incurred by the Plaintiff as compensation for damages caused by the tort, to the Plaintiff, KRW 72,920,000,000,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. Determination

① As recognized earlier, it is recognized that the dong Line’s attitude of tort caused the Plaintiff to broadcast by misunderstanding the final academic background while preparing a career broadcasting Plaintiff against the Plaintiff. However, even though the Plaintiff discovered any error in the candidate’s career broadcasting, i.e., the Plaintiff’s demand for correction on each Dong Line, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it as to whether the Dong Line neglected to broadcast the wrong broadcast contents continuously without looking at the Plaintiff’s demand. Rather, it can be acknowledged that the Dong Line’s name pointed out that there was an error in the Plaintiff’s career broadcasting from the Plaintiff’s side after 00:0 on May 30, 2006, and, as such, the Defendant’s tort merely stated the Plaintiff’s final academic background with the negligence of the Plaintiff’s negligence in preparing the Plaintiff’s career broadcasting report.

② Since an election of property damage reflects not only the candidate’s academic background but also various variables such as political parties to which the candidate belongs, pledges, figures, during the election period, social evaluation, and flow of public opinion, it is difficult to readily conclude that a single element has influenced the success of the candidate. However, solely on the circumstance that the Dong-gu Line had recorded and broadcasted the plaintiff’s final academic background erroneously, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was deprived of the candidate due to the mistake in the Dong-gu Line, or that the 10% of the special vote that could have the plaintiff refunded the deposit amount of KRW 2 million was not achieved, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the plaintiff’s above assertion about property damage compensation is without any reason to further examine the scope of damages.

(3) Mental damage.

However, the wind that the plaintiff's final academic background is distorted and evaluated with the perception of the right holder, thereby resulting in a distortion of the plaintiff's reputation and self-esteem, so the defendant is obligated to act in money. Thus, the defendant is also obligated to act in money. Thus, the defendant does not submit the plaintiff's career broadcasting report; the defendant found the error in the career broadcasting and immediately corrected it, and made efforts to provide correct information to the right holder through corrective broadcasting, as well as immediately correct correction; the defendant's error does not seem to have affected the success of the election; and the defendant's above error does not appear to have affected the success of the election, etc., it is reasonable to determine the amount as one million won in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 7, 2006 to March 27, 2007, which is the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff with respect to damages for tort, to the plaintiff, as the damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum under the Civil Act and 5% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of complete payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.