The plaintiff is a company that operates the business of manufacturing and selling concrete products.

Defendant B is the issuer of “D”, a daily newspaper, and Defendant C is the reporter of “D”.

Title : Unlike EF market price "the death of a particular company", there is no preferential controversy over one company as the EF administration is consistent.

(A) On the contrary, there is an accident of criticism with preferential controversy, as it is consistent with the illegal law cycle for one company.

In October 2013, the Si stated that "to make efforts to take lawful measures in accordance with the relevant laws within the city of omission" with respect to the authenticity of illegal construction, etc. of SVcons, but it did not take any subsequent lawful measures, and later filed a complaint with the media later.

In this process, Sick installed manufacturing machinery equipment installed in the first 1995 thickness, but installed in February 2012 while expanding machinery, the market price has not been punished due to the expiration of the statute of limitations due to the lack of clear disclosure of the extension date of machinery.

(A) The relevant industries argued that “SBcon uses inferior marinas unsuitable for the production of ready-mixed, and other companies immediately before bankruptcy due to price dumping, etc., are taking advantage of the other companies,” and that “The circumstances with respect to all preferential administration against this company must be punished together with the accurate investigation and investigation by the competent authorities.”

B. On March 29, 2015, the Defendants posted an article containing the following (hereinafter “instant article 1”).

C. On May 22, 2015, the Defendants posted articles containing the following contents in D (hereinafter “instant article 2”).

Title: GF and H Eup administration are “The cycle of specific enterprises” and “the death of a competitor company”.