2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court held that the Plaintiff asserted as the subject of the claim for the instant corrective statement [K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”)]

(ii)In the instant program, the Defendant’s report on the tender that was unfairly involved in the process of examining the instant bid to be selected as the external producers of the PP 2 PP 2, and accepted the claim for the corrective report on the first issue as stated in its reasoning.

In light of the records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the pleadings or the disposition right principle, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant did not merely state its opinion on each of the instant articles, but explicitly stated the specific facts that “the Plaintiff was unfairly involved in the process of examining the instant bidding to be selected by K as an external manufacturer of the instant program at the time of the instant program.”

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a statement of fact” in the press report, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4, in light of the evidence duly adopted and the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, the lower court determined that the allegation or suggesting of the fact that there was a bid corruption in the bidding process of the instant case is not true, in a situation where it cannot be clearly recognized that there was a bid corruption in the

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court erred in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine of the burden of proof as to “the truth” as the requirement for a request for a corrective statement, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine against logical and empirical rules.