2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 20, 2015, the representative director C of the Plaintiff, a broadcasting business corporation, was appointed as the representative director, and C was from the president who was irrelevant to the broadcasting business, and the Defendant sent to Kakao Stockholm a notice posted in attached Form (hereinafter “instant notice”) on November 9, 2016.

B. The main contents of the above posted article are “the criticism of the recruitment of the representative from the head of the bank who received the suspicion of D scholarship student,” and at the time of transmitting the above posted article, the broadcasting company, the representative from the head of the bank, was the Plaintiff.

C. On the other hand, on December 12 to 13, 2016, the article, etc. issued and disseminated the Internet portal, newspaper, or the Plaintiff’s Labor Relations Board to the effect that “D has participated in the process of appointing the president of A company.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that all the facts stated in the notice of this case are false facts, but the burden of proof as to the falsity is not sufficient to acknowledge the falsity, and there is no other evidence, and there is no suspicion that D intervene in the appointment of the representative director on the Internet portal, etc. with the above notice as the source. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the falsity.

She accordingly, we will examine whether the Defendant’s expressive act itself through the instant notice constitutes an infringement on the Plaintiff’s social evaluation as a public allegation of fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 67Da1000 delivered on July 25, 1967). B.

원고에 대한 불법행위 인정 여부 ⑴ 원고의 사회적 평가가 침해된 것인지 여부 ㈎ 어떤 글이 쇼셜 미디어에 게재된 경우 그 글이...