Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul

Representative's President;

Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul Central District

Awards and Decorations for Representative Directors

2. △△△△;

Jung-gu Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court Embio Guidebook

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

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

It shall pay 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Upon receipt of the written judgment of this case, Matrieng Co., Ltd., the first publication of the written judgment is completed;

In the middle part of the left side of Section A of Section A of 35 of the "Seong Il-il", a correction report in attached Form 1 shall be filed.

The title of this part shall be 30 actives, and the content shall be posted in 10 actives.

The following facts may be acknowledged in the absence of a dispute between the parties, or in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. Status of the parties

Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff ○○○”) is a broadcasting company established pursuant to Article 43 of the Broadcasting Act, and Defendant ○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant ○○”) is a newspaper company that publishes a daily newspaper, and Defendant △△△ is a person who works as Defendant △△△’s debate week, and has overall control over the preparation and editing of a private opinion as indicated in attached Form A No. 35 on June 3, 2005 (hereinafter “instant private opinion”).

B. A monthly example company of the Plaintiff ○○○’s president’s wage at the same time

On June 1, 2005, at the employee inquiry, Plaintiff ○○○○○, expressed measures for innovation of management and financing structure innovation, etc. The contents of this case related to this case are as follows: “The receiving fees set at KRW 2,500 for consecutive price linkage among the measures for innovation of financing structure: 2,500 won in 2004, as the actual value has continuously decline due to price increase, shall be 848 won in 1981. If a price increase in the receiving fees was reflected in the year 1981, the receiving fees currently shall be 7,362 won in 204: the receiving fees shall be 1.045 billion won in 204; and this shall be the level capable of managing the company without advertising funds.

Therefore, the fundamental cause of which the structure of financial resources is distorted mainly by advertising financial resources is that the actual value decline of the amount of the receiving fees determined in 1981 was not prevented, and it is essential to link prices with the receiving fees in order to solve this problem.

On June 3, 2005, the Defendant Dogsung posted the instant private opinion in Dogdongbook.

2. Determination as to the establishment of defamation

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) that “○○○○○○○○○○ Government shall pay 7,300 won to 2,50 won to 7,00 won to 30 won to ○○○○○○○○○○ Government Government” (hereinafter referred to as “the first engineer part”) merely means that it would be considered to link the fee with the price, and that the fee would not be paid to ○○○○ Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government....... Do Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government.

Plaintiff ○○○ only produced a broadcast program from a fair and objective point of view as a national key broadcasting company, and did not have produced a broadcast program to expand the basis of political support, even though the fact that the program was spreaded against the U.S. and the U.S. ideology through news reports and special collection production, but did not sell Plaintiff ○○○’s report on all facts and special collection production program using an extreme term called anti-U.S. and waves, thereby impairing Plaintiff ○○○○’s reputation.

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to the portion of the first news article (A) generally requires a statement of specific facts that may undermine the social evaluation of a particular victim in order to establish defamation against another person under civil law. Whether defamation by media such as newspapers is established should be determined based on the overall flow of the article, the ordinary meaning of the used words, and the connection method of phrases, on the basis of the objective contents of the article, comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the overall appearance of the article to which the article pertains to the reader; and (b) the standard of determination.

(B) On the other hand, regardless of the authenticity of the fact, the phrase “the Plaintiff ○○○○, the president of the Plaintiff ○○○○, told that the Plaintiff would have raised KRW 7,300 as KRW 7,30,00 at the present 2,50 won to KRW 7,30.” It is difficult to view the statement of fact as a statement of fact that could undermine the Plaintiff ○○○’s social evaluation. Moreover, it cannot be said that the statement of fact stated that the Plaintiff ○○○ expressed the fee as tax would have a negative meaning that would undermine the Plaintiff ○○○’s social evaluation.

(C) However, examining the part concerning the first engineer based on the overall flow of the article, the overall appearance of the article, etc. among the private opinions of this case, the plaintiff 00 won from 2,500 won to 7,300 won from 7,300 won from 2,50 won from 2,50 won from 7,300 won from 2,50 won from 1,000 won from 2,50 won from 1,000 won from 2,00 won from 2,00 won from 2,00 won from 1, and there is room to view the part concerning the first engineer as impairing the reputation of the plaintiff 1.

The president ofx 2 stated that he would introduce intermediate advertising and indirect advertising to increase the amount of 00 billion won in price to 7.5 billion won, and to change the provisions of the Broadcasting Act." This would not be known only because it differs from MBC or SBS. It would be because of the fact that the current state of the Republic of Korea and future careers would be more likely to increase the amount of 10 billion won, or that it would be 10 billion won for the purpose of 200 billion won for each of the following reasons. The president of 300 billion won for 10 billion won for 60 billion won for 10 billion won for 200 billion won for 10 billion won for 20 billion won for 3 years for 200,000 won for 3 years for 200,000 won for 200,000 won for 20,000 won for 3 years for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 3 months for ever.

The Korean daily newsletter : "If the president did not present a specific width, but reflected it in a price increase in after 1981, the current TV license fees at KRW 7,362 won as of 2004, and at least 1,5,000 won as of 204, it is possible to operate the company without any advertisement," and "The president stated that "if the amount of increase in price is reflected in KRW 2,500,000, the current TV license fees at KRW 7,362 won as of the receiving fees set for 81 year," and "if the amount of increase in price, it is essential to link the amount of the receiving fees at KRW 7,362": CBS: "The president has applied the amount of the receiving fees set at KRW 2,500 in the last 1981 so far, and until now, price increase has been reflected, the current amount of the receiving fees at KRW 362,00,000."

From the perspective of 204, the president of a regular president stated that the amount of 2,50 won, which was 2,00 won at the time of 1981, is 848 won, and that when she intends to realize the value at the time, she shall be 7,362 won per month.” (e) Meanwhile, in order for the media organization to faithfully perform its role as a criticism against the state power or the social power, it should ensure that it guarantees a variety of views according to its inherent values and free speech within the framework of the law within the framework of the law. On the other hand, in a case where the media organization becomes the other party to the criticism, it is difficult to view the media organization as 0 times the amount of 00 won, taking into account that the media organization is one who works for the general public to realize the right to know, she should be 00 times the amount of 20 times the media organization’s unlawful act should be considered to be 00 times the amount of 200 times the media’s unlawful act.

(G) If so, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. (2) The fact that the part of the article was referred to as “the viewing fee,” which is not a tax, as a tax, as a tax-free viewing fee, cannot be deemed an defamation of Plaintiff ○○○○, solely on the ground that it is referred to as “the viewing fee in the private opinion of this case” or “the viewing fee” before stipulating that “the citizen receives the viewing fee, which is forced to be integrated with the electricity fee, as a tax, as a tax, is in fact similar to the tax, but is in fact different from the tax in its original meaning. (b) However, as alleged by Plaintiff ○○○○, if it is based on the premise or suggest that Plaintiff ○○○○ collected the viewing fee, which is a tax, without any legal basis, and infringes on the people’s property rights, it is deemed that there is a concrete statement that may undermine the social evaluation of a specific victim.

(C) However, considering the objective contents of the private opinion of this case as well as the ordinary way of a general reader’s contact with an article, comprehensively considering the overall flow of the article, the ordinary meaning of the used words, and the connection method of phrases, etc., the part concerning the second news article only points out that the Plaintiff ○○○○ is entitled to a pro rata license fee even if it does not discriminate against other broadcasting companies in terms of the fairness and public interest of MBC or SBS and news reports, even though it is a national key broadcasting company, it does not seem that the Plaintiff’s assertion on the third news article is without merit. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the different premise is without merit. (A) Defamation established under the Civil Act refers to not only an act infringing on an objective evaluation of human character values, but also an act of expressing opinions, as long as it infringes on such objective evaluation, but also an act of expressing opinions cannot be seen as having been established by means of a mere expression of opinion or an expression of opinion, in light of the other party’s purpose.

In addition, if a certain expressive act of the press, such as a newspaper, becomes a problem in relation to defamation, whether the expression is a statement of fact or merely an expression of opinion or comment, or if an expression of opinion or comment is made at the same time, whether or not the expression of fact as a premise is explicitly indicated at the same time, shall be determined on the basis of the objective contents of the relevant article, as well as the ordinary meaning of words used in the article, the overall flow of the article, and the method of linking phrases, etc., on the premise that the general reader takes part in the article at the same time, should be determined on the basis of the ordinary meaning of words used in the article, the whole flow of the article, and the social flow, etc., in which the article is published, should also be considered

(B) In accordance with these criteria, the part of the third engineer cannot be known as referring to any factual report and special origin with respect to the health, politics, economy, society, and international relations.

However, according to the context before and after an article, according to the overall flow of the article, this part of the article is somewhat inappropriate in its expression, but it further enhances the public and public interest of broadcasting and restructuring, etc.

It seems that it is nothing more than emphasizing the argument that the citizen would not think that the viewing fee will be exceeded without self-help efforts. Moreover, it is insufficient to recognize the view that the time of Plaintiff ○○○○’s factual report and special house broadcast program became the subject of ideological and political controversy at the time of publication of the private opinion of this case by itself, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the meaning of the theory itself has expressed any specific fact as an evaluation concept premised on subjective judgment.

(C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jae-soo

Kim Gil-il