2. The plaintiff's remaining main claims and other conjunctive claims are dismissed, respectively.

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

Preliminary Claim: The Defendant shall continue to indicate in the first copy of the “PD Notebook” program, which is first broadcasted after the service of this decision, the title “shotbook” on the upper end of the screen, such as a normal program caption, and then display on the screen a caption as much as the viewers can sufficiently identify the content thereof, and then make the conductor read in the screen at the same speed as the progress of the original program. If the Defendant fails to perform the above obligation, he shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 50,000 per week from the day following the expiry of the above period until the completion of the performance thereof.

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiff is a central administrative agency established under the Government Organization Act, which takes charge of affairs concerning agriculture, fisheries, livestock, food, farmland, repair, promotion of the food industry, development of agricultural and fishery products, and distribution of agricultural and fishery products.

The defendant is a broadcasting company for the purpose of broadcasting business, cultural service business, etc. which produces and broadcasts the program called "PD pocket book".

B. Details of the Defendant’s broadcast report

(i) the date and time of broadcasting and the relevant program;

On April 29, 2008, from around 23:00 to 24:00, the Defendant broadcast “PD Notebook” as “Is U.S. Beef safe from Mad Cow Disease?” (hereinafter “the instant broadcast”).

2) Contents of the instant broadcasts

The Defendant broadcasted to the effect that U.S. beef affected by Mad Cow Disease in the broadcast of this case can be imported from Korea due to import sanitary conditions of U.S. beef as amended on April 18, 2008, and thus may threaten the lives and health of the people. Of the contents, the part of the Plaintiff’s issue is summarized as follows.

① The U.S., after the first outbreak of a luminous disease in 2003, was prohibited from slaughter all cattle showing symptoms of the booming, but some slaughterhouses were slaughtered after suppressing the booming cattle (one string, dow cow) that is still likely to have been affected by a luminous disease in some slaughterhouses.

② On April 16, 2008, the U.S. Women’s Republic of Korea died on April 16, 2008, and family members and doctors are suspected of human form of depression due to their death.

③ On April 18, 2008, the Government of the Republic of Korea agreed with the Government of the United States of America on new requirements for the import sanitary requirements of U.S. beef (hereinafter “the import sanitary requirements of U.S. beef”). As a result, in the case of cattle less than 30 months of age, only the import of satises without bones, but only the import of all parts other than 2 parts out of 7 parts of specific dangerous substances (SM) shall be permitted.

④ As a result of such negotiations, the Korean government did not know about the risk of Mad Cow Disease in U.S. beef or the actual condition of the U.S. slaughter system.

⑤ Since the ratio of Korean nationals with specific gene type (M) is 94%, the probability of human form of optical cow disease is reached 94% when Korean nationals take in beef infected with bovine spongiform disease, which is approximately three times in the case of the United Kingdom, and approximately two times in the case of the United Kingdom.

6. According to the import sanitary conditions of U.S. beef, the Korean government has no measures that can independently respond to the situation even if a human form of bovine spongiformiform disease occurs in the United States.

7. Although the Korean government expands the country of origin of beef, if the U.S. beef contains U.S. beef ingredients without direct consumption, it can be infected by human form of spact, Albululule, cosmetic, cosmetics, etc. so its effectiveness is doubtful.

C. The circumstances after the instant broadcast

1) On May 6, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that a significant part of the content of the instant broadcast was false and that the Plaintiff’s trust and reputation had been damaged by the Plaintiff’s leading in negotiations on import sanitary requirements of U.S. beef, and filed an application for conciliation against the Defendant Press Arbitration Commission for correction and counterargument report.

2) On May 15, 2008, the Press Arbitration Commission made a decision on May 15, 2008, stating that “The Defendant shall report to the MBC-TV “PD Notebook” program that is first broadcasted after this decision became final and conclusive.

3) On May 26, 2008, the Defendant filed an objection against the said decision by the Press Arbitration Commission.

2. General theory on a request for a corrective statement and a request for a corrective statement;

(a) Relevant Acts;

[Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage]

Article 14 (Requirements for Request for Corrective Measures)

(1) Any person who suffers damage due to a failure of a press report as to a factual assertion (hereinafter referred to as "victim") may request a press organization to make a corrective report on the content of the press within three months from the date he/she becomes aware of the existence of the press report: Provided, That this shall not apply where six months have elapsed since the press report was made.

(2) The request under paragraph (1) shall not require any intention, negligence or illegality of a press organization.

(3) The State, a local government, or the head of an institution or organization may request a corrective report on behalf of the institution or organization in connection with the relevant duties.

(4) An institution or organization which has no capacity to be a party under the Civil Procedure Act shall constitute a single living unit and may request a report on the correction, if the representative has a direct interest in the details of the report.

Article 15 (Exercise of Right to Request for Corrective Measures)

(4) A press organization may refuse a request for a corrective statement in any of the following circumstances:

1. Where there is no legitimate interest in claiming for a corrective statement;

2. Where the contents of the corrected report requested are obviously contrary to facts.

3. Where the contents of the corrective report requested are obviously illegal.

4. Where it aims at commercial advertisements only.

5. Where the contents of the corrective report requested are related to the disclosure meetings of the State, local governments or public organizations, and the fact-finding reports of the court's open trial procedures.

Article 16 (Claims for Counterargument)

(1) Any person who has suffered damage due to a press report on a factual assertion may claim a counterargument report on the content of such report to the press organization.

(2) The request under paragraph (1) shall not require any intention, negligence or illegality of a press organization, regardless of whether any content of the report is true.

(3) Except as otherwise prescribed, the provisions on a corrective report of this Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to requests for counterargument.

(b) Requirements for a request for a corrective statement and a request for objection;

1) A person who asserts that a press report suffered damage may seek a counterargument report pursuant to the provisions of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (hereinafter referred to as the “Act on Press Arbitration”) by asserting and proving that the press report in question concerns factual assertions and has suffered damage due to its content. Furthermore, the said press report may seek a corrective report pursuant to the provisions of the Act on Press Arbitration by asserting and proving that the content of the said press report differs from the truth.

2) In this context, factual assertion refers to the assertion of facts that can determine the existence of a factual assertion based on evidence, which is a substitute for an expression of opinion containing a value judgment or evaluation. In a case where a factual assertion and a report is made in combination of comments, criticism, etc., whether it is a subject of a claim for counter-performance should also be taken into account not only the ordinary meaning of words used, the overall flow, the connection method of phrases, but also the social flow that is a broad context or background, and the overall impression given to the viewers, on the premise of the objective content of the relevant report, but also the general meaning of words used, the overall flow, and the overall impression given to the viewers.

(c) Where a press organization may refuse a request for a corrective report or counterargument report;

Even if the victim meets the requirements for a correction or request for counter-performance, if the victim does not have a legitimate interest in the exercise of the claim for counter-performance, or the content of the correction or counter-statement claimed is obviously contrary to the fact, the publication of such objection may be refused.

Here, the case where the victim does not have legitimate interest in exercising a claim for a corrective statement or a claim for a counterargument report includes the case where the content of a correction or a counterargument report sought by the victim has already been made with the same proportion as that of the original literary article through the relevant press organization that has already reported the original literary article, and the case where the purpose of the claim for a corrective statement or a counterargument report has been achieved, and the case where the contents of a report on a corrective statement or a counterargument report are not connected with the essential nature and are related only to the original contents of the report on the corrected statement or a counterargument report, but only to the case where it is related to the original contents of the report on the original literary article, and there is no way to contribute to the original purpose of creating a correct public opinion (Supreme Court Decision 97Da2803 delivered on

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's Class A (I) and judgment on the plaintiff's ground (the plaintiff's ground for seated and luminous disease part)

1) Plaintiff’s proposal No. 1

The failure to file a lawsuit has a variety of causes, other than Mad Cow Disease, such as Korean Ambassadors, alleys, safs, and downs caused by diseases. However, the Defendant displayed dynamic images containing the safs in which the safs are slaughtered. The Defendant made a false report to the effect that the said lawsuit was caused by Mad Cow Disease, and thereby suffered damage, such as the Plaintiff’s reliance or honor being damaged.

(ii) The contents of broadcasts

갑1, 2의 각 기재에 의하면, 피고는 이 사건 방송에서, 미국 내 도축장에서 인부들이 전기충격기나 물대포로 주저앉은 소에 충격을 줘 억지로 일으켜 세우려는 장면을 담은 동영상과 함께 “미국은 2003년 첫 광우병 발생 후 주저앉는 증상을 보인 모든 소의 도축을 금지했다.”라는 내레이션을 방송하고, 위 동영상을 제작한 휴메인 소사이어티의 마이클 크래거가 “사람들이 심지어 이런 소가 도축됐다고는 생각하지 못할 거에요.”라고 인터뷰한 내용을 보도한 사실, 이어 2008. 4. 16. 미국 버지니아에서 열린 아레사 빈슨의 장례식 장면을 방영하면서 “그녀는 사망하기 전 인간광우병 의심진단을 받았다.”라는 내레이션을 보도한 사실, 이어 미국 소비자연맹 수석연구원 마이클 핸슨이 “(미국산)쇠고기를 먹는 사람들은 실험동물과 같다는 겁니다. 그저 미국에서 문제가 생기지 않기를 바랄 뿐이죠.”라고 인터뷰한 내용을 보도한 뒤, 소외 1 프로듀서가 “아까 광우병 걸린 소 도축되기 전 모습도 충격적”이라는 내용을 보도한 사실(이하 ‘이 사건 제①보도’라고 일컫는다)을 인정할 수 있다.

3) Whether the report of this case ① is false or not

A) Although the Defendant’s broadcast reported in the instant broadcast that “it is difficult to readily conclude that there was a luminous disease lawsuit among these videos. However, there is no way to determine whether this lawsuit is a luminous disease, because it was already slaughtered and sold for food.” However, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant broadcasted to the effect that the instant broadcast was affected or likely to have been affected by a luminous disease, based on the overall impression that the content of the instant report was presented to viewers. However, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant broadcasted to the effect that the instant report was based on the overall impression given to viewers.

B) However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the reasons why the lawsuit is not filed may be acknowledged that there are various causes, such as Ambassadors, safs, and safs, other than Mad Cow Disease, and declines caused by diseases, in Gyeonggi-do, a lawsuit of 600 Mad Cow Disease has been filed, but there is no evidence in which there was no action of Mad Cow Disease, among them, and the fact that the action of Mad Cow Disease was not found in a lawsuit born after 197 in the United States.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the dynamics of the broadcast of this case were not affected by a luminous disease. Thus, the part that the dynamics of the broadcast of this case were affected by a luminous disease or are highly likely to have been affected by a luminous disease among the reports of this case ① is false.

4) Whether a request for a corrective statement may be rejected

A) Defendant’s assertion

On May 13, 2008, the defendant asked Non-party 1 producer in the PD Book "PD Book" program that "and is frequently in our program, but the so-called Daners, some people are not entirely affected by the Mad Cows, and there is any misunderstanding. It is the same that we do not do so. It is necessary that Non-party 2 producer "...... I do not see the various kinds of Mad Cows, which are known to the Mad Cows, all times, and so on, it can be inferred from various causes such as Mad Cows, Epis, Epis, and declines caused by diseases." However, it is clear that Non-party 2's correction of the contents of the Mad Cows," which is "No more than 10,000,000 broadcaster than 19,000,0000,000,000."

Accordingly, since the plaintiff made a full corrective report and achieved its purpose, there is no legitimate interest in exercising the claim for a corrective statement.

B) the board;

The facts of the Defendant’s follow-up report on these contents are recognized (B.12, 47). However, in relation to this part of the report, the Plaintiff’s corrective report sought is different from the purport that “The Plaintiff’s ground for failing to file a lawsuit to sit is different, and thus, the lawsuit to sit down on the video of the instant broadcast is unlikely to rise to or under the possibility of having occurred,” the main contents of the follow-up report are diverse causes for failing to file a lawsuit. However, it is difficult to view that the above follow-up report alone sufficient contents of the corrective report that the Plaintiff is seeking and achieves its purpose.”

5) Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion seeking correction on the part that the cattle standing in the video is or is highly likely to have been affected by a luminous disease during the report of this case No. 1 has merit.

B. Plaintiff’s main ground for death (the part on the cause of death of Arasson) and judgment

1) Plaintiff’s proposal B

On June 12, 2008, the U.S. Disease Control Center announced the results of the investigation that the cause of the death of Arason was not a human form of Madson. However, the Defendant made a false report to the effect that Aradson died of a human form of Madson, which caused damage to the Plaintiff’s trust or honor.

2) Broadcasting content

According to the statements in Gap 1 and 2, the defendant cited the part of the broadcast of this case, "I am am son, following I am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am am ss am s am am ams ams am............ I am am am son's mother cannot understand that I am am dam am am ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams ams amsle ams am.......mam am am am am...mam.mam.mar....mam am am am am am am.mar.mar.................. am am am am am am am................. am..........................................................................

3) Whether the content of the Report No. B is false or false

A) Although the Defendant, in the instant broadcast, made a report to the effect that the U.S. Health Authority currently conducted an investigation to clarify the cause of the Arasson’s death, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant broadcasted to the effect that the Arasson’s death was or was likely to have been caused by Arasson’s death, in view of the content of the instant report B based on the overall increase made to viewers.

B) However, according to the statements in Gap 1, 9-1, 10, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of the United States, citing the results of the preliminary investigation by the U.S. Disease Control Center (S.C) on May 5, 2008, issued an interim announcement that the private person of Le Bason was investigated into non-human forme disease. On June 12, 2008, the U.S. Disease Control Center (NPPSC) concluded that the NPSC’s private person was not human forme disease.

Therefore, among the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report of this case, the part that the report on the report on the report on the report of this case was killed or might have died

4) Whether a correction or a request for objection can be rejected

A) Defendant’s assertion

On May 13, 2008, the Defendant reported that Non-Party 2 producer “PD Notebook” was “Non-Party 5, U.S. C. E. S. E. E. S. E. S. E. S. E. S. E. E.C. Report that “The U.S. E. E. E. E. E.C. E. E. E. E. E.C. E. E. E. E. E. E.C. E. E. E. E.E. E. E. E. E. E.C. M. M. M. M. E. E. E. E. E.C had an international media interest, but the U.S. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E. E.C. E. E. E.C. E.E.E.E., the E.E. E.E. E.E.E.E.E. (E.E.) reported that the U. S. E. E. S. E. S. S. S

Therefore, since the correction or counterargument report by the plaintiff was made sufficiently and its purpose has been achieved, there is no legitimate interest in exercising the right to request a correction or counterargument report, and therefore, the defendant may refuse the correction or counterargument report by the plaintiff.

B) the board;

The facts that the Defendant made the follow-up report as above are recognized (B 12,13). The contents of the correction or counter-report sought by the Plaintiff in relation to this part of the report are as follows: “In accordance with the U.S. Disease Control Center’s announcement on June 12, 2008, the reason for the death of Ararason was investigated as not a human form of depression.” It is deemed that the Defendant’s correction or counter-report was made through the broadcast on May 13, 2008 and June 17, 2008 and the purpose of the claim for correction or counter-report was achieved. Therefore, there is no legitimate interest in exercising the right to make a correction or counter-report, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff may refuse to comply with the correction or counter-report has merit.

5) Conclusion

Therefore, among the report No. B of this case, the part that Arason died or has a high possibility of death as a human mining-related disease is false, but since the defendant's subsequent report achieved the purpose of claiming correction or counterargument report, the plaintiff's assertion seeking correction or counterargument of this part of the report is without merit.

C. The plaintiff's third week (the part on import of specific dangerous substances) and judgment

1) Plaintiff’s third proposal

According to the definition of the International Secretariat for the International Waters (OE), 7 parts of a lawsuit over 30 months of age constitute a specific hazardous material (SSM). However, in the case of a lawsuit over 30 months of age, 7 parts of a lawsuit, such as brain, snow, salll, salute, salute, salute, salute, salute, salute and salute, and salute abandonment, which constitute a specific hazardous material. However, under the erroneous premise that all specified hazardous materials of a lawsuit are seven (7) months of age, the Defendant made a false report to the effect that the lawsuit over 30 months of age is imported as it is, and thereby, suffered damage, such as that the Plaintiff’s trust or reputation was damaged.

2) Broadcasting content

According to the statements in Gap 1 and 2, in the broadcast of this case, the defendant reported the following facts: "When the brain of a lawsuit affected by Mad Cow Disease is examined, it shall be drilling the hole, such as punch. The cause substances causing it are the immediately modified punch. In particular, the part of the lawsuit which is concentrated in high concentration is called a specific dangerous substance. There are seven kinds of specific dangerous substances in the lawsuit and parts that have not been entered into the Republic of Korea until now. However, in the future, in the event of less than 30 months, it may be recognized that the defendant reported that "if you remove the brain of a lawsuit affected by Mad Cow Disease, it shall enter the Republic of Korea with five remaining parts when removing Mad Cow, Ltd." (hereinafter referred to as "the report of this case No. 3").

3) Whether the contents of the third report of this case are false or not

We examine whether the part of the defendant's report that the five of them could be imported is false in the case of a suit under the import sanitary condition of U.S. beef of this case where the five of them could be imported under the age of 30 months without distinguishing the monthly age.

According to the statements in Gap 16 and 17, the International Trade Organization's "SPS Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures" has been recognized as an international organization which established the International Standards for Animal Sanitation and Quarantine; the International Waters Secretariat classify 7 parts of lawsuits with respect to 30 months or more of age of the Mad Cow Disease Control State as specific dangerous substances; however, with respect to lawsuits for less than 30 months of age, two percent of them are classified as 16 and two of its chairperson abandonment; the United States has recognized the status of the Mad Cow Disease Control State by the International Bureau on May 25, 2007 as a specific dangerous substance; however, according to the records in Eul 4 and 7, the European Union (EU), as a whole, has excluded from 12 months or more of Mad Cow Disease Control State; two out of 12 months or more of Mad Cow, two out of 12 months of Mad Cow, two out of 12 months or more of Mad Cowallon;

According to the above facts, there are various kinds of reports in accordance with the country or classification criteria rather than the one which classifys specific risk materials of cattle. Of the report of this case No. 3, there are seven specific risk materials of cattle and five of them can be deemed to have been imported under the import sanitary requirements of U.S. beef of this case. Accordingly, it is difficult to view this part of the report as false, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion seeking a corrective report is without merit.

However, as a press organization that should contribute to the formation of correct public opinion by an accurate factual report, it shall be deemed that there was confusion among viewers by failing to disclose even though it should have been identified as a specific dangerous substance of a lawsuit by any of the aforementioned various classification criteria, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s trust or honor was damaged. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to make a counterargument report that “In a lawsuit that is less than 30 months old in light of the classification criteria set by the International Authority for Control of Mad Cow Disease Control Bureau, the Plaintiff is obligated to make a counterargument report with the content that “It constitutes a specific dangerous substance.”

4) Whether a request for counterargument may be rejected

A) Defendant’s assertion

At the second meeting of experts on September 11, 2007, the Plaintiff classified 7 parts of all lawsuits into a specific dangerous substance, such as brain, eye, ductal, ductal, ductal, ductal, ductal, ductal, and ductal abandonment. The Defendant trusted this, and reported that the specific dangerous substance of the lawsuit is 7 days without distinguishing age from the report of this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff has no legitimate interest in exercising the claim for a counter-claim.

B) the board;

On September 11, 2007, prior to the agreement on import sanitary requirements of U.S. beef, the Plaintiff classified 7 parts of the lawsuit as specific risk materials, such as brain, eye, gymal, salll, salvine, salvine, salvine, salvine, salvine, salvine, and galvine abandonment. However, even if the Plaintiff’s claim for objection to this part contributed not to the subjective meaning of the victim’s right protection, it would contribute significantly to the formation of correct public opinion. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes “when there is no legitimate interest in exercising the right to claim for objection.”

5) Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the part of the No. 3 Report of this case, which reported that there are seven specific risk materials in the lawsuit and five of them can be imported under the import sanitary conditions of U.S. beef of this case, is justified to the extent that the counterclaim is sought.

D. Chapter No.4 of the Plaintiff (Korean gene type and risk of human form of Mad Cow Disease) and judgment

1) Chapter No. 4 of the Plaintiff

Only a specific gene type alone makes it difficult to predict the probability of human form of MaM gene type. As such, the probability of human form of MaM gene type of beef affected by 94% is not 94%. However, in the case of a Korean citizen, the Defendant made a false report to the effect that the probability of human form of MaM type of beef is 94%, so when taking in beef affected by MaM type of disease, the probability of human form of MaM type of disease is reached 94% and that it is 3 times higher than that of the United Kingdom and 2 times higher than that of the United States. Accordingly, the Defendant suffered damage, such as damage to the Plaintiff’s trust and reputation.

2) Broadcasting content

According to the statements in Gap 1 and 2, in the broadcast of this case, the defendant revealed that "the result of the analysis of the genes in the name of 500 U.K., shows that it is very weakly in terms of luminous disease. The 129th gene type among the freeropic genes is total of 3 MM type. Among this, all persons who have occurred human form of luminous disease until now are MM type. In other words, the probability that human form of luminous disease would occur when Korean people take in beef infected with luminous disease is about 94%. Accordingly, the U.S. people are far 50% of U.S. people? It appears that MaM type is about 3 times the U.K. people and about 2 times the U.S. people might be considered high."

3) Whether the No.4 report of this case is false or false

According to the statements in Gap 11 through 15, the outbreak of human form of Mad Cow Disease can be acknowledged that the risk of human form of Mad Cow Disease increases or lowers the risk of human form of Mad Cow Disease.

According to the above facts, even if about 94% of Korean nationals take the form of M genes as alleged by the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the probability of human form of Mad Cow Disease reaches about 94%. Moreover, it cannot be readily concluded that the probability that Korean nationals take the form of human form of Mad Cow Disease is about 3 times the United Kingdom, and about 2 times the United States people. Therefore, among the No. the No.4 report of this case, the part that the probability of taking the form of Mad Cow Disease would be about 94% when Korean nationals take the beef infected by Mad Cow Disease is false.

4) Whether a request for a corrective statement may be rejected

A) Defendant’s assertion

On July 15, 2008, when the lawsuit in this case was pending, Nonparty 1 producer in the end part of the “PD Book” program in which Nonparty 1 had been reported that, “The PD Book on April 29th of Korea had a specific electronic form of MM, which is the U.K. or the U.S. people, the probability that human form of Mad Cow Disease would occur is about 94% when Korean people take in beef infected with Mad Cow Disease. However, since it is difficult to predict the probability of human form of Mad Cow Disease solely with a specific type of gene type, it is incorrect that the probability of human form of Mad Cow Disease would occur at least 94% because the Korean people had 94% of human form of Mad Cow Disease, which is vulnerable to human form of Mad Cow Disease.” The purport that the report was made by the Korean people, which is higher than that of other countries with low Mad Cow Disease rate.”

Accordingly, since the plaintiff made a full corrective report and achieved its purpose, there is no legitimate interest in exercising the claim for a corrective statement.

B) the board;

The Defendant’s follow-up report is recognized (B47). However, in relation to this part of the report, the Plaintiff’s corrective report’s purport is that “The probability of the outbreak of human form of Mad Cow Disease cannot be determined solely on the basis of a specific electronic form, and therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the probability of Korean human form of Mad Cow Disease reaches approximately 94%, or that the probability of Korean form of Mad Cow Disease reaches approximately 3 times in the UK, and approximately 2 times in the U.S. people,” while the main content of the follow-up report is that even if the probability of Korean human form of Mad Cow Disease does not reach 94%, the probability of the outbreak of human form of Mad Cow Disease is higher than those of other countries with the lower ratio of Mad Cow Disease.”

Therefore, it is difficult to deem that only one time during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit and the subsequent report consisting solely of the above contents alone during the program’s last part is sufficient to report the contents of the corrective report that the Plaintiff is seeking, thereby achieving its purpose.

5) Conclusion

Therefore, among the No.4 report of this case, the plaintiff's assertion seeking correction of the part that Korean people's probability of 94% of human form of Mad Cow Disease when taking in beef affected by Mad Cow Disease is justified.

E. The plaintiff's second director's proposal (in case of human form of depression in the United States, the part of the response of our government) and judgment

No. 1) No. 53

If there is a situation that is likely to cause concern over the health of Korean citizens due to additional outbreak of Mad Cow Disease in the United States, the government may take necessary measures, such as the suspension of import of U.S. beef in accordance with the relevant provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GT). However, according to the import sanitary requirements of U.S. beef in the United States of America, the Defendant made a false report to the effect that even if Mad Cow Disease in the United States of America occurs, the Korean government is not able to independently

2) Broadcasting content

According to the statements in Gap 1 and 2, there is a question about whether the president of the Republic of Korea would have been aware of the contents of the negotiations in the instant broadcast. In particular, even if there is a problem, the defendant reported the following facts (hereinafter referred to as "the report of this case") that "I would like to be unable to suspend the import of the Republic of Korea," which "I would like to be able to cancel the approval of the relevant workplace or to take measures such as suspending the quarantine, if I would like to enter the same mineral disease as that of the bones, such as before he would have been able to take a measure of suspending the quarantine. In fact, there was a little fact that I would like to take measures to suspend the quarantine in the instant broadcast. However, in the future of this negotiation, even if I would like to have a human mineral disease in the U.S., we would be able to independently come through consultations with the United States."

3) Whether the contents of the No. 5 report of this case are “private performance assertion” or not.

The part that the plaintiff in the report of this case states that the "no Korean government can independently take measures such as the suspension of quarantine on the grounds that the import sanitary condition of U.S. beef of this case is found in the U.S. imported beef of this case, even if there is no provision that the Korean government can independently take measures for the suspension of quarantine on the grounds that the import sanitary condition of U.S. beef of this case is found in the U.S. beef of this case, unlike the former import sanitary condition of U.S. beef of this case, the Korean government can not take measures such as the suspension of quarantine on the future without consultation with the U.S. government, namely, the evaluation or expression of opinion on the negotiation of import sanitary condition of U.S. beef of this case

4) Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion seeking correction or counterargument is without merit under the premise that the part of the report of this case No. 544 is related to factual argument that "no measure can be taken by the Government of the Republic of Korea even if a human form of depression occurs in the United States."

F. The plaintiff's main sentence (the part concerning the risk of human luminous infections through the head office, etc.) and judgment

1) The Plaintiff’s head.

Since U.S. beef is imported from the Republic of Korea with a full removal of specific risk materials, there is no or very low risk of infection in human form of Mad Cow Disease through pharmaceutical products or cosmetics containing U.S. beef ingredients. However, the Defendant made a false report to the effect that the risk of infection in human form of Mad Cow Disease is high by taking in sp, Ald Cowal, Ald Cowal, and cosmetics containing U.S. beef ingredients, which caused damage to the Plaintiff’s trust or honor.

2) Broadcasting content

According to the statements in Gap 1 and 2, the defendant may recognize the fact that the broadcast of this case reports the following contents: "Non-Party 1's question of "I need not be resolved to see that only Non-Party 3's beef or food is potable?", and Non-Party 3's prote, "The Government expands the country of origin of beef, but it also has the beef ingredients in spp, capsules, even cosmetics, etc. as well as beef, and thus the effectiveness of which is expressed." (hereinafter referred to as "report of this case").

3) Whether the contents of the instant report are “private performance assertion” or not.

A) In light of the overall increase and context of this part of the broadcast, the content of the instant report is the purport that the effectiveness of the report may be doubtful even if the U.S. beef is infected with human form of Mad Cow Disease under the premise that the U.S. beef could be imported in Korea, on the condition that the U.S. beef, the specific risk of which is not completely removed, can be imported in Korea. Therefore, the issue that the parties concerned in this part of the report can be said to be whether the specific risk of the U.S. beef is completely removed when imported in Korea.

B) However, in light of the fact that there are problems in the U.S. slaughter and quarantine system and there were cases where certain dangerous substances such as bones, such as the import sanitary conditions at the time were detected in the U.S. beef which were previously imported in Korea (A. 1, 2, and 4), the Defendant may determine that U.S. beef is likely to be imported in Korea without completely removing specific dangerous substances in violation of import sanitary conditions, and the above report should be deemed as having been evaluated or expressed by the Defendant on the same possibility.

4) Conclusion

Therefore, the part regarding the issue of the instant report corresponds to the Defendant’s evaluation or expression of opinion that “A U.S. beef, the substance of which is the main part of the instant report, can be imported in Korea,” and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking correction or counterargument is without merit (in light of the various circumstances shown in the instant argument, it seems that the Plaintiff would also be able to face human form of opic disease when taking advantage of a specific dangerous substance of a cattle, which suffered from opic disease, if taking advantage of a specific dangerous substance of a opic disease).

G. No. 100 No. 2000,000 No. 2000,000 won No. 200

1) No. 100 No. 10

The Plaintiff inspected the U.S. slaughter system, such as prior to the negotiations on import sanitary requirements of U.S. beef and conducting a conference of experts over three times in 2007, and conducting an investigation into local slaughterhouses, etc. However, the Defendant reported that the Korean government negotiation team, such as the Plaintiff, etc., was properly aware of the U.S. slaughter system and asked questions as to whether it was known and known, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff’s trust and reputation.

2) Broadcasting content

According to the statements in Gap 1 and 2, the defendant stated that the broadcast of this case contains the following contents: "The death of Ambson, which caused multiple cattles to be detained in the U.S. slaughterhouse, shall not affect the negotiation of import sanitary requirements for U.S. beef; the interview conducted by the Cmar Agricultural and Trade Policy Officer in the U.S.; the interview conducted in the U.S. inside and outside 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

3) Whether the No. 1 No. 2009 of the No. 300,00

In light of the overall increase and context of the broadcast in this part, the No. 200, the Defendant’s judgment appears to be problematic in the U.S. slaughter and quarantine system. However, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff reported a critical evaluation of the Plaintiff’s preparation for negotiations or capacity on the import sanitary requirements of U.S. beef, with due knowledge of the risk of Mad Cow Disease and the problems of the U.S. slaughter System. Accordingly, the No. 2019, supra, should be deemed to constitute an expression of opinion or evaluation.

4) Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's assertion seeking correction or counterargument is without merit under the premise that the No. report of this case is about factual argument.

4. Details and methods of the correction and counterargument report; and

In full view of the health stand, the time period during which the instant report was broadcasted, the method and content of the expression, and all other circumstances shown in the instant argument as to the size, content and method of the correction and counterargument report, the Defendant continued to display the title “Correction and counterargument report” on the top of the screen in the size of the letter, such as the ordinary caption, and then, indicated on the screen the contents of the correction and counterargument report (as seen above, the contents of the correction or counterargument report) in such a manner as to make it possible for viewers to sufficiently recognize the contents of the report, it is reasonable to have the proceeding broadcast in such a way that the viewers read at the same speed as the progress of the original program.

On the other hand, in light of the critical role of the media, the defendant, a media company, may report critical judgments or evaluations on this judgment. However, if the defendant broadcasts the opportunity to report the above correction and counterarguments in the opportunity to report the counterarguments or critical opinions on it, it is not desirable that the victim's remedy functions by the corrective report might be weakened, and in such a case, it may be deemed that the defendant has failed to properly implement the obligation of correction and counterarguments.

5. Indirect compulsory performance;

Considering the circumstances indicated in the argument of this case, such as the Plaintiff’s status, the Defendant’s follow-up report to correct a part of the report after the instant broadcast, etc., the Defendant appears to perform the duty of act as seen above within a given period from the date of receipt of the written judgment, and there is no evidence suggesting that there is no possibility that the Defendant would otherwise fail to perform the duty of correction and counterargument report within the fixed period. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s

6. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's main claim and conjunctive claim of this case are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining main claim and conjunctive claim are dismissed as they are without merit.

Judges Kim Sung (Presiding Judge)