Ocheon-si Gayang-si ○ ○

Representative General General Meeting ○○

Law Firm D.C. (Law Firm D., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellee]

○○○ Corporation

Seoul Yangcheon-gu, Yangcheon-gu ○ ○

Representative ○○○

Law Firm Masan, Attorney Park Man-soo

[Defendant-Appellant]

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

In the broadcast program, the first head of the broadcast time broadcasting, in the same manner as the articles subject to judgment, shall be normal;

Title, such as program caption, which is a correction and counterargument report, on the top of the screen, of the size of letters;

Section B. A. The 'A’ correction and the 'A’ request for a counterargument report to be made on the following screen:

It is displayed as a caption to sufficiently recognize its content, and it is intended to have the operator do so.

In the same speed as the progress of the program, reading shall be made.

2. The defendant's homepage (htp: / antiiscj.O. O.co. km) at the center of the early screen of ○○○ (OUT).

The title of "Correction and Counterclaim Report" shall be published, and if a title is charactered, a correction and counterargument shall be made in attached Form.

The report request shall be indicated and shall be kept in the news database after publication.

In addition, even during the original broadcast re-broadcasting, the correction of Paragraph 1 and the report of the counterargumentd video is the first head of the video.

section 32 of this title.

3. If the defendant does not comply with paragraphs 1 and 2, the payment shall be completed from the day after the deadline to the plaintiff.

No later than 1,00,000 won per day shall be paid respectively by day.

4. The defendant shall pay 50,000 won to the plaintiff.

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff is a non-legal entity entity as a religious organization established for the purpose of happiness of the Plaintiff. The Defendant is a broadcasting organization that maintains and operates the Korean broadcasting station and local broadcasting station with the aim of fostering the dynamic culture to Korean society.

B. The Defendant’s broadcast 1) broadcast time and program Defendant broadcasted the contents of the Plaintiff’s broadcast in the program of “○○ Special Planning” from July 31, 2012 to September 30, 2012, and the program of “○○ OUT 1 protocol” (hereinafter “instant program”). Moreover, the Defendant broadcasted the content of the broadcast as to the Plaintiff in the program (hereinafter “instant program”) of the title “Special Egrative, Egrative, Egrative, and Egrative, ○○○ ○○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○”). The content and the content of the broadcast as to the Plaintiff.

The defendant sent a broadcast to the effect that "the plaintiff is a force of this case claiming the end theory, etc., and the plaintiff's believers is committing suicide or destruction of his family, as well as anti-social and humanistic issues, such as the collapse of the existing church, etc." The part of the contents broadcasted by each protocol of this case is examined as follows (hereinafter referred to as "the first report of this case" to "the first report of this case 12" to "the first report of this case" to "the first report of this case, and when they are referred to as "each report of this case").

On July 31, 2012, the Defendant reported that “the Plaintiff may receive KRW 144,00,00 at the last time.” On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff reported that “The Plaintiff was able to receive KRW 144,00,00 at the last time,” and that “The Plaintiff was able to receive KRW 144,00 upon the Plaintiff’s testimony that ○○○, who withdrawn from the Plaintiff, refers to the Plaintiff as White, and the Plaintiff was able to receive KRW 144,00,00,00 from the 144,000,000,000.”

B) Report 2 of this case

On August 1, 2012, the Defendant reported the instant case that was controversial in Gwangju (in the process of the Plaintiff’s believers’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s mother’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s ○○ case that was mistaken as a result of the investigation, was not suspected of being arrested, and “whether the provider of the cause for which it had no choice but to occur?” It is inevitable to see it as being clearly erroneous on the ○○ side.

C) Report 3 of this case

On August 7, 2012, the Defendant issued a summary order on the ground that the ○○○○○○○ in Daejeon had undermined the honor of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s president on the instant report on August 7, 2012, with respect to the fact that the instant report was issued by the Defendant, the Defendant issued a summary order from the court. The Defendant again requested a formal trial on the premise that the issues of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ would have been exposed to the legal response. The Defendant again requested a formal trial through the process of the trial, and is going ahead of the trial of the first instance on the next 17th trial. The instant report “I are anti-social, anti-human, and family problems are extremely large.”

On August 7, 2012, 2012, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the Si by ○○ as ○○ refused to build a new religious facility in North Korea, and ○○○ filed a lawsuit against the Si, while the Jeonju District Court filed a lawsuit against the local residents for family conflict and study due to ○○○○ residents.

However, under the assertion that there is a harm, such as running away, etc., the court widely recognized the activities to prevent the spread of this power for the public interest purpose, such as dismissing the claim for cancellation of the building non-permission disposition filed by the ○○○ side against the Dosan-si on the ground that it may cause serious conflicts in the local community when permitting construction.

E) Report of this case No. 5

On August 14, 2012, the Defendant: “The first head report is made on the Plaintiff’s new head, and the father, who was investigated by the police upon the Plaintiff’s complaint, did not salute his salute his own salute without reporting the mother’s salute. “The mother was divorced from this mother’s salute, and this salute was known to salute to ○○○ before five years before the Plaintiff’s new salute. It was difficult for her family members to look at the family after salute the conflicts if salute the family after saluteed to salute the salute of salute. It was also impossible for her family members to salute the fact that salute the Plaintiff’s new salute more than 100 million won, but it was later impossible for her family members to do so.

F) Report 6 of this case

On August 28, 2012, the Defendant reported that “the head of the Plaintiff’s general assembly Lee ○” was called “the head of the Plaintiff’s general assembly,” who was a Gu resident in this era, and that “the head of Lee ○○, who is an elderly citizen, has been constantly raised the current health abnormal theory. As the current health abnormal theory has been constantly raised, volunteer organization’s representative Kim Ma○, as the heir was designated as the heir, and it was known that he will be a successor through his own medium.”

G) Report of this case No. 7

On September 4, 2012, the Defendant deemed “○○” as a closed-end social religious group that leads to the conclusion of the instant protocol on September 1, 2012 due to the fact that the young young people, who were in the closed-end doctrine, were given up of their studies at home and abroad.

(h) On September 5, 2012, the Defendant’s report (1) of this case: “I would like to find out Kim c. ○○, working as an employee of a university of the region,” and “I would like to enter the same half of a year or house, and Kim c. I would like to go back to the mother, and I would like to go back to the mother, and I would like to go back before the ○○ church. After that, I would like to ask the wife to go back, I would like to go up with the complaint of the wife, but there was a reason that I would have been able to keep the wife off. I would like to say that I would have been able to ask for divorce, and therefore, I would like to say that I would like to say that I would have been able to go up to 00,000, and that I would have been able to go up to 20,000,000,000,000.

I) Report of this case No. 9

On September 7, 2012, the defendant, in the first protocol of this case, "I have installed CCTV at a place to prepare for any situation widely known as counseling activities. The case was caught on the CCTV screen as of June 10, 2012. As soon as women were seated out of the event outside of the wedding, I reported that I would come out of this church before the church, and I would exercise my own violence. The surrounding people were removed, but I would have the opportunity to come with the members and the ditches. While this woman was removed for one time, I would have been ○○ new. As a result of this confirmation, women who used violence was sentenced to a fine. However, women who were tried to file a complaint by the ○○○ Association, but I would have been sentenced to a fine, which was the previous ○○○ Association.

(j) Report of this case No. 10

On September 30, 2012, the Defendant: (a) on September 30, 2012, 2012, ○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○”) reported the instant report that “○○○ (i.e., ○○○○○○), who was frightened by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, had her religious life with 12 private schools at ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○”); and (b) reported that ○○○ (a) reported that ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○○”); and (c) reported that ○○○ had her religious life with 12 private schools by referring to her own fright and her frighted with her own fright and wrong frighting with her fright○○○”).

On September 30, 2012, the Defendant: “In the instant case, students are retired from their studies, and employees are retired from their work, and the home owners are going to move up to 140,000 to 14,000,000.” The Defendant reported the Defendant’s remarks by Kim○, which was distort, to the extent that they were forced the Defendant to break up the instant report to her family members before reaching the instant complaint, which was the first place. The Defendant, as the last day of the instant case, led to the Defendant’s refusal of studies, going out of school, destruction of home, even violence, suicide, murder, murder, etc. In 202, the instant case was found to have been illegally committed by Lee○-man in 204, the collective assault by ○○○○ in 204, the instant case was committed by the Nonindicted ○○ Association and attempted murder and murder of 2010, the instant case, and the Defendant forced the Defendant to break up the instant report to her family members before the instant complaint.

(l) Report of this case No. 12

On September 30, 2012, the Defendant: “Around September 30, 2012, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.,

C. Operation of the Defendant’s website

On the other hand, the defendant currently operates the website (htp: / / antiiscjO. O.co. k.) under the title of ○○ Special Planning, and ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○ ○○). The defendant publishes video and news articles that criticize the plaintiff on its website, including each protocol of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 8-1 to 9, video of Gap evidence 6, the result of the verification by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s act of reporting each of the instant reports by each of the instant protocols constitutes a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act against the Plaintiff for the same reason as indicated in the following “A through C”.

Therefore, as stated in Article 764 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff, as a disposition appropriate for the recovery of honor, sought a corrective report or counterargument report and indirect compulsory performance thereof, as stated in the Claim Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and sought payment of KRW 50,00,000 as compensation for mental damage pursuant to Article 751(1) of the Civil Act.

A. The damage of reputation caused by a false statement of fact was false, distorted, and distorted the content of each of the instant reports. Therefore, the Defendant made a report of each of the instant reports, thereby indicating false facts with respect to the Plaintiff. Moreover, the Plaintiff was damaged due to the Defendant’s aforementioned false statement of fact.

B. Infringement of personal rights

In the process of reporting each of the reports of this case, the Defendant failed to perform its duty of care in relation to the method of expression by decently and aggressive expressions such as ‘social, anti-state, tax evasion, and assault, waiver of studies, family destruction, violence, suicide, suicide, murder, acts not exceeding common sense, homicide, inter-human group, and non-humanistic group’. The Plaintiff violated his personal right due to the Defendant’s violation of the duty of care as above.

C. Violation of the Broadcasting Act, etc.

Although the Defendant did not have a license granted to run news reports in the form of the Broadcasting Act, the Defendant lent each of the instant news reports. The Defendant’s each of the instant reports is against Articles 9, 11, 19, 20, 21, and 32 of the Regulations on Broadcasting Deliberation (hereinafter “Regulations on Broadcasting Deliberation”) established by the Korea Communications Commission pursuant to Article 33 of the Broadcasting Act. Accordingly, the Defendant’s each of the instant reports is an unlawful act violating the Broadcasting Act and the Broadcasting Deliberation Regulations.

3. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of defamation due to the assertion of false facts

1) Relevant legal principles

It refers to an act of infringing upon an objective evaluation of a human value, such as a person’s character, virtue, reputation, and credit, which is a tort under the Civil Act, and as long as such an objective evaluation is infringed, it may also be established by an expression of opinion or comment. However, mere expression of opinion alone cannot be deemed as impeding the other party’s social evaluation. Thus, if an expression of opinion or comment is a pure opinion or comment that is not premised on a statement of fact, damage compensation liability due to the defamation is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da6203, Jul. 28, 200). In addition, where another person’s reputation is damaged by a statement of fact through the press and publication, where the Plaintiff claims that the alleged fact was false or false as the cause of the claim and claims compensation for damage, the Plaintiff is liable to prove such falsity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da58233, Jan. 24, 2008).

On the other hand, the freedom of religion includes the freedom of mission to promote the religion of one’s own belief and to identify new believerss, and the freedom of mission includes the freedom of criticism of other religions or to recommend other believerss of religion to open to another religion. While the freedom of religion is subject to the protection of freedom of expression at the same time, Article 20(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea on freedom of religion has the nature of special provisions as to freedom of expression Article 21(1) of the Constitution on freedom of religion. Thus, in the case of press and publication for religious purposes, it shall be more guaranteed than other general press and publication (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da19246, 19253, Sept. 6, 196, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, I would like to examine whether each of the instant reports by the Defendant constitutes an act of defamation due to a false statement of fact, in mind. 2) The first report of this case

According to the evidence evidence No. 8-1 and No. 2, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the contents of the report No. 1 of this case were false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the report No. 8 of this case were false. Rather, considering the evidence No. 8-1, No. 2 and No. 3 of the witness and the overall purport of the witness’s testimony and oral argument, ① The actual contents of this case’s report No. 1, No. 144,00 are stated several times, i.e., Israel and 144,00, 200, 12, 144, 12, 1400, 304, 40, 140, 400, 40, 400, 12, 400, 40, 40, 20, 20, 304, 20, 204, 30, 40, 300, 2, 4, etc.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a report of this case No. 1 and made a false statement about the plaintiff is without merit.

3) The second report of this case

The records of No. 4-1 to 4, No. 18-1 to 5, and No. 19 alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the part of the report of this case was false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the part of the report of this case was false, and rather, in full view of the entries of No. 9-1 to No. 4 and the whole purport of oral argument, the Gwangju Northern Northern Police Station in charge of the investigation of "the above" case was recognized that the party was not arrested, and there is no suspicion of a crime, such as assault," and it can be recognized that the investigation was completed on the ground that the above part of the report of this case No. 2 was true.

Furthermore, the part of the report of this case among the contents of the report of this case No. 2 is merely pure opinion or comment that is not premised on the statement of fact, and it is reasonable to view that the part of the report of this case No. 2 was merely a pure opinion or comment that is not a premise of the statement of fact.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a second report of this case and made a false statement about the plaintiff is without merit.

4) The third report of this case

Of the contents of the report of this case No. 3 only with the descriptions of No. 20-1 to No. 3

'A summary order was issued by the court because the court did not take legal action, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the part of the report is false, and that the court is going before the trial of the first instance by filing a request for formal trial. Rather, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, there is no dispute between the parties that the court was sentenced to a summary order on the ground that the plaintiff and the plaintiff's general meeting violated the honor of the plaintiff. According to the above facts acknowledged, the above part of the report of this case 3 news report of this case is true (in the meantime, it is reasonable to view that the report that the court was sentenced to a summary order from the court because it did not take legal action and did not actively assert the existence of a suspicion, and that the report of this case was issued by the court is merely an expression of the defendant's pure opinion or comment without submitting supporting materials from the court).

Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that the part of the report of this case No. 3 was merely a pure opinion or comment that is not premised on a statement of fact, since the report of this case No. 3 reported to the plaintiff and his believers the idea of ○○'s pastor that there is an anti-social and anti-humanity problem, etc.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a third report of this case and made a false statement about the plaintiff is without merit.

5) Report of this case No. 4

In full view of the contents of the report of this case No. 9, Gap evidence No. 11, 12, and evidence No. 14-2, it is not sufficient to recognize that the part of the report of this case No. 4, "the plaintiff left for accusation and accusation" was false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the part of the report of this case "the plaintiff dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit for cancellation of non-permission of construction which was filed against Husan-si," and rather, the plaintiff and its believers filed several complaints against the plaintiff as defamation or interference with business, etc., upon considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments No. 3-1, No. 3-2, No. 11-2, No. 11-8, and No. 14-2, the part of the complaint of this case was found to be true.

Furthermore, the court is justified that criticism on the upper part of the contents of the report No. 4 of this case is justified.

The part which is proved through a judgment is widely recognized for the public interest purpose of preventing the spread of the power above, and the part which is "the defendant interpreted and assessed the above disposition of the prosecutor's office or the court's judgment from his own point of view and it is difficult to regard it as a statement of fact.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a report of this case No. 4 and made a false statement about the plaintiff is without merit.

6) Report 5 of this case

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① 000 and the husband of 000 and 100 have become fired because 00 have come to the Plaintiff’s church, due to which the 000 and 100 have become fired until the date on which the husband of 00 knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife k.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a report of this case No. 5 and made a false statement about the plaintiff is without merit.

7) Report 6 of this case

In light of the following circumstances: (a) 1, 9, 10, 11, and 26-1 of the evidence Nos. 2-5, 6, 8-1, 13-1, 13-1, 9, 10, 11, 26-1 of the evidence Nos. 26-1, 1, 1, 1, 26, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 14-1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 13-1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3-1, 2, 2, 1, 3-1, 1, 3-2, 1, 1, 3-2, 1, 3-1, 2, and 9-1.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a report of this case 6 and made a false statement about the plaintiff is without merit.

8) Report of this case No. 7

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① there is a room to interpret that the title is destroyed and lost on the book “○○○○○○○, a total president of the Plaintiff,” ② the Plaintiff was providing education to the effect that he / she should observe the trust and good faith even if he / she goes to a conflict with his/her family; ③ the Plaintiff’s believers appears to have been able to assist other believers in resolving food, clothing and clothing; ③ the Plaintiff’s believers appears to have been able to help the Plaintiff to resolve the food, clothing; ③ the Plaintiff’s believers appears to have been actually a considerable number of parents of the demonstration that sent his/her children before the Plaintiff’s church to the Plaintiff’s house, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the report of this case was false and evidence to acknowledge that the report of this case’s evidence No. 14 is insufficient.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a report of this case 7 and made a false statement about the plaintiff is without merit.

9) Report of this case No. 8

In light of the following circumstances: (a) No. 4-3, (b) No. 4, (c) No. 15, and (d) No. 25-1 through No. 8; (b) No. 1, who is the wife of ○○○○○, called ○○○○○’s name from the report of this case, for the reason that the Plaintiff’s church is not the Plaintiff’s church; (c) the mother of No. ○○ appears to have carried out one person’s demonstration, and (d) it appears that ○○○○ was not a party to the Plaintiff’s church. In light of the fact that ○○○○ was a party to the Defendant’s newspaper, and that ○○○ was a party to the Defendant’s human rights by ○○, which was the husband of the Defendant’s newspaper, and that ○○○○ was not a party to the investigation and trial, and that ○○○ was sentenced to a fine not exceeding 100,000 won for the reason that ○○ was detained.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a report of this case No. 8 and made a false statement about the plaintiff is without merit.

10 Report of this case No. 9

In light of the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 22 and 23, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 6-10, and the whole purport of this court's examination results and arguments, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the report No. 9 of this case was false, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it was false. Rather, in full view of the evidence Nos. 22 and 23, Eul evidence Nos. 6-10, and the whole purport of this court's examination results and arguments, ① The plaintiff's Shin Seo-do-do-ro assaults ○○ before the ○○○○ Association in Ansan, which is the plaintiff's Shin Seo-do-do-do-ro, and other people in the surrounding areas commit the ○○○○○, and the fact that the defendant was sentenced to a fine No. 9 of this case on the ground that it was an injury to the defendant's office during the debate.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a report of this case No. 9 and made a false statement about the plaintiff is without merit.

11) Report of this case No. 10

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff introduced the summary power of Lee ○, a general meeting leader, on his/her own website in 1957; (b) the Red ○○, a member of the Red ○○○○, who was living together with his/her religious life from Lee ○ and 1968 to 1987, stated that he/she entered the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on 1978’s delivery and from March 13, 1980, it did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the content of the report in this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a report of this case 10 and made a false statement about the plaintiff is without merit.

12. Report of this case No. 11

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the contents of the report of this case 11 are false [1] The plaintiff appears to have received education to the effect that "if he enters new 14,00 new scams, he may receive assistance from his family members." ② The plaintiff's new scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscams 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, and 22). The plaintiff's new scamcamcamscamscamscamscamscamscam.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a report of this case No. 11 and made a false statement about the plaintiff is without merit.

13. Report of this case No. 12

In light of the following circumstances, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the contents of the report of this case No. 12 are false (the statement No. 24, rather than Eul’s evidence, and the purport of the entire argument as a result of the court’s verification, i.e., the report of this case No. 12 appears to have been based on a personal interview that the reporter belonging to the defendant left his father and her for a long time away from his father and her mother who took place. ② In fact, the report of this case No. 12 in the report of this case, in light of the fact that the mother, who took a telephone call with his father only for a long time, was aired together with her mother who taken snow, is likely to have been true).

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made a report of this case No. 12 and made a false statement about the plaintiff is without merit.

14) Sub-committees

Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant damaged the plaintiff's reputation by expressing false facts with respect to the plaintiff through each of the reports of this case is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of infringement of personal rights

Although the expression actor’s expression of critical opinion cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that it expressed another person’s opinion, if the form and content of the expression act falls under an insulting and definite personal attack or infringes on personal rights by publishing distorted facts going beyond a certain degree of exaggeration about another’s personal affairs, it may constitute a separate type of tort against reputation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65494, Apr. 9, 2009, etc.).

According to the above facts, the defendant expressed the plaintiff as an anti-social or anti-human group while reporting each of the reports of this case with respect to the plaintiff at each of the reports of this case, or the plaintiff or the plaintiff's believers were able to engage in acts of not more than common sense, such as abandonment of his studies, withdrawal from home, destruction of home, even violence, suicide, murder, etc. even if they reported, the report is deemed to have been made on the basis of material that most true facts or that it is deemed that the report of this case was made on the basis of material that can be believed to be true, and the defendant's report of this case was made for the purpose of religious criticism against the plaintiff. Considering that these religious criticism should be guaranteed to the extent that it should be wider than that of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution, it is difficult to view that each of the reports of this case constitutes an infringement on the plaintiff's personality rights as an expression of this case and thus, it is difficult to recognize that each of the reports of this case constitutes an infringement on the plaintiff's personality rights.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant infringed on the Plaintiff’s personality right by reporting each of the instant reports is without merit.

C. Determination on the assertion of violation of the Broadcasting Act, etc.

Even though the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, was unable to report the news form under the Broadcasting Act, in violation of each of the news reports of this case, despite the Defendant’s absence of the news form, it is difficult to view the news contents contained in the report as an infringement on the Plaintiff’s honor or personal rights, apart from the fact that there is room for infringement on the Plaintiff’s reputation or personal rights. Thus, there is no causation between the Defendant’s act of violation of the Broadcasting Act, the Plaintiff’s act of violation of the Broadcasting Act, and the damage caused by the Plaintiff’s reputation and personal rights.

In addition, the broadcast deliberation rules are merely administrative rules that set the criteria to be observed at the time of deliberation by the Korea Communications Standards Commission, and do not apply the above provisions to the plaintiff or the defendant who is a direct company (private person). Thus, even if the defendant violated the broadcast deliberation rules as alleged by the plaintiff, it shall not be viewed as an illegal act against the plaintiff, regardless of the fact that the defendant can be subject to administrative sanctions from the Korea Communications Standards Commission.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's violation of the Broadcasting Act and the Broadcasting Deliberation Regulations constitutes a tort against the plaintiff's reputation or personal rights is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Seo-sung

Judges Kang Jina

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.