2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiff AD Medical Association is a non-corporate body whose members include mental health specialists, etc. who work in the field of I. The Plaintiff C is a professor of J Hospital, Plaintiff B is a director of K mental health department who works in the field of I. The Defendant is a newspaper published “E” in daily newspaper.

B. On June 11, 2018, the Defendant reported the article of this case with the same content as the attached Table 2 under the title of the "Amination disorder", and also posted it on its website. The key content is that according to subparagraph 14 of the "L" by the professor Professor Professor Professor of the U.S. M&C (U.S.), there is insufficient medical basis to regard AD as a disease in his/her thesis. In education, criticism is being raised that there is a means to manage ADD with high activity. It is not a treatment of a fact-finding disease, but a temporary measure to improve students' concentration."

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion has a duty to publish a correction report in attached Form 1 pursuant to Article 14 (1) of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (hereinafter "Act on Press Arbitration") since the defendant has damaged the plaintiffs' reputation by openly expressing the following false facts via the article of this case.

The term “L” 14 is recently published in the timely facts of Nos. 14.

2 N is a doctor or a professor of medicine.

3. ADHD-related prescriptions have increased during the 3 examination period.

4 There is a doubt about the effect of pharmacologic treatment to AD.

5 ADD cannot be viewed as a disease, and its regional difference is high in the disease rate.

6O doctor's degree has prevailed AD and there is no difference between the patient and the normal person in his thesis.