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

A. On January 31, 2006, the Plaintiff was a legal entity that manufactures and sells a small owner of the trademark “assimil” (hereinafter “the small owner of the instant case”), and was issued a new manufacture license from Gangnam Tax Office for the small owner of the instant lawsuit.

B. The Plaintiff separated water (H2O) from hydrogen temperature and fishery (OH) temperature by means of passing through the eculic and hydropolartic eculic eculation in the manufacture of the instant sub-owneds. The Plaintiff collected water (H2O) from the eculic eculation and used it for manufacturing water by mixing it with water. The Plaintiff sent the instant sub-owneds into the world’s first alculic eculic eculic eculc eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic eculic

C. On March 7, 2008, the Defendant published a summary of the fact that the Plaintiff obtained illegally manufacturing licenses even if the water used it as water failed to meet the requirements stipulated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Management of Drinking Water Act, and on January 14, 2008, a statement of the fact that the Plaintiff obtained illegally manufacturing licenses even if the water used it as water failed to meet the requirements under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Management of Drinking Water Act, and on January 14, 2008, a statement of the fact that “(i) public questioning about the acquisition of illegal licenses for the first time of so-called so-called “(i.e., So-called So-called Doksan)” was inserted under the title “(i) public inquiry about the acquisition of illegal licenses for the first time of so-called Doksan.”

D. Prior to the withdrawal of the lawsuit, Co-Defendant 1, Seoul newspaper company and the non-party, such as the reporters belonging to the Seoul newspaper company, prepared articles to the same effect as written in attached Form 1 (attached Form 2) on the basis of the coverage of the defendant, and reported it to the Seoul newspaper on March 18, 2008, and the defendant posted the article on the next day on his Internet Blue (○○○).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 3 to 5, whole purport of pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The water used in the manufacturing process of the instant tenant does not cause any harm to the health by meeting the water quality standards of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the acquisition and the degree of lawful acquisition of the manufacturing license. The Defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a result, since the Plaintiff’s reputation and credit was damaged by inserting an article written by the Plaintiff for illegally obtaining the manufacturing license, even though the water used in the manufacturing process of the instant tenant cannot be used as the water for manufacturing the tenant under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, or by spreading it by preparing it as an article of the Seoul Seoul newspaper.

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) The cattle of this case is used as a manufacturing water for alkyllogic water with high hydrogen ion concentration in the method of electric decomposition, and there is yet to be sufficient scientific verification as to whether electric decomposition alkyllogic water is harmful. However, it is not possible to use it as a manufacturing water because it goes against the food code as seen below because it does not fall under the "drinking water" under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Management of Drinking Water Act. Thus, it is against the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to give the Plaintiff the manufacture license of this case by public officials, such as the head of Gangnam District Tax Office and the head of the National Tax Service

(2) The Defendant’s comments posted on the Internet Blogs and the facts indicated in the article of the daily Seoul newspaper are all true, and the Defendant’s publication or publication solely for the public interest, which is the protection of national health, is dismissed.

3. Whether liability for damages has been established;

A. General theory

(1) According to the above facts, the safety of the alkyllogic alkyllogic alkhy used as the water for the manufacture of the instant novels was not verified medically, and the legally cannot be used as the water for the manufacture of the alkic alknis, so it was explicitly stated that the Plaintiff obtained the manufacture license for the manufacture of the alknis. Accordingly, it is recognized that the social evaluation of the Plaintiff has lowered thereby impairing its honor and credit.

(2) However, even in a case where an act of damaging a person’s reputation under civil law is committed, if it is a matter of public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, there is no illegality in such act, and even if there is no proof, if there is any reasonable ground to believe that it is true, it shall be deemed that the actor is not illegal. Whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that it is true or not shall be determined in light of the following: (a) the details of the alleged fact; (b) the grounds for believing such fact as the truth or the reliability and credibility of materials; and (c) the truth should be determined in light of the fact that the truth is supported by objective

The next is whether the illegality of the defendant's act is dismissed in that it is true, reasonable, and public interest.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) The process of acquiring the manufacturing license for the instant tenant

㈎ 원고는 2006. 1.경 소주 제조 면허권자인 강릉세무서장에게 이 사건 소주의 제조방법을 새로 신고하였고, 강릉세무서장은 2006. 1. 4.경 신규로 주류제조면허 신청서가 접수된 때에는 국세청 기술연구소에 기술적인 검토를 의뢰하여 주류제조방법에 대한 기술연구소장의 적합판정을 받은 후에 주류제조를 승인할 수 있다는 국세청 사무처리규정 제37조에 따라 국세청 기술연구소에 기술검토작업을 의뢰하였다.

㈏ 국세청 기술연구소는 2006. 1. 12. 강릉세무서장에게 이 사건 소주의 제조방법에서 전기분해한 지하수를 제조용수로 사용한다는 부분과 관련하여 원고가 지하수를 전기분해하여 주류에 사용할 수 있도록 인증 받았는지 여부 및 먹는물수질검사성적서를 첨부하여 송부할 것을 요청하였다. 이는 위 기술연구소가 먹는물관리법 소정의 먹는물의 수질관리기관이나 수질검사기관이 아니기 때문에 수질에 대한 판단권한이 없다고 판단한 데서 비롯된 조치였다.

㈐ 원고는 2006. 1. 10. 먹는물관리법 제35조 소정의 수질검사기관인 강원도 보건환경연구원 동부지원으로부터 이 사건 소주의 제조용수인 전기분해한 알칼리수가 먹는물 관리법상의 수질기준에 적합하다는 취지의 판정을 받았다. 나아가 원고는 2006. 1. 12. 식품의약품안전청에 위 수질검사성적서를 첨부하여 전기분해과정을 통해 처리된 알칼리 환원수를 이 사건 소주의 제조용수로 사용할 수 있는지 여부에 대하여 질의를 하였다. 이에 대하여 식품의약품안전청장은 2006. 1. 19. “전기분해과정을 통해 처리된 물이 환경부령인 ‘먹는물 수질기준 및 검사 등에 관한 규칙’ 제2조 제1항 및 별표 1에서 정한 수질기준에 적합하고, 먹는물관리법 제3조 제1호 소정의 ‘먹는물’에 해당되는 경우라면 식품 제조·가공용 용수로 사용가능하다”는 취지의 회신(이하 ‘2006. 1. 19.자 회신’이라 한다)을 하였다. 식품의약품안전청은 식품제조용수와 관련하여 2002. 5. 이전에는 단순히 먹는물 수질기준에 적합할 것을 요구하다가, 2002. 5.부터 ‘지장수’나 ‘음이온수’ 등의 물을 건강음료로 제조·유통하는 행위를 근절하기 위하여 먹는물관리법에 적합할 것을 요구하는 내용으로 식품공전(식품의약품안전청장이 식품위생법 제7조 제1항 에 따라서 식품의 기준과 규격을 정한 고시)을 개정하였고, 위 회신은 이러한 입장에 따른 것이었다.

㈑ 원고는 위 회신문과 강원도 보건환경연구원 동부지원에서 발급받은 시험성적서를 강릉세무서장에게 제출하였고, 강릉세무서장으로부터 위 회신문 및 시험성적서를 교부받은 국세청 기술연구소장은 2006. 1. 20. 이 사건 소주의 제조방법에 대하여 적합판정을 하였다. 이에 앞서 본 바와 같이 강릉세무서장은 2006. 1. 31. 원고에게 신규제조면허를 발급하였고, 원고는 2006. 3.경부터 이 사건 소주를 출시하였다.

(2) The defendant's filing of a problem and the response of related agencies

㈎ 피고는 2006. 5. 4. 식품의약품안전청장에게 전기분해과정을 거친 알칼리 환원수를 소주의 제조용수로 사용하는 것이, 식품공전 제3. 3. 1) (2)항의 ‘식품 제조·가공 및 조리에 사용하는 물은 먹는물관리법에 적합한 것이어야 한다’는 규정과 먹는물관리법 제3조 제1호 의 ‘먹는물이란 먹는 데에 통상 사용하는 자연 상태의 물, 자연 상태의 물을 먹기에 적합하도록 처리한 수돗물, 먹는 샘물, 먹는 해양심층수 등을 말한다’는 규정 등과 관련하여 적법한지 여부에 대하여 질의하였고, 이에 식품의약품안전청장은 2006. 5. 9. 피고에게 2006. 1. 19.자 회신과 같은 내용의 회신을 하였다.

㈏ 피고는 2006. 5. 4. 환경부에 대해서도 동일한 내용의 질의를 하였는데, 환경부는 2006. 5. 10. “전기분해에 의하여 먹는물의 수소이온농도를 변경하였다 하더라도, ‘먹는물 수질기준 및 검사 등에 관한 규칙’ 제2조 제1항 규정에 의한 먹는물 수질기준에 적합하다면 음용하기에 적합한 물로 볼 수 있다”고 회신하였다.

㈐ 피고가 2006. 5. 12. 식품의약품안전청에 전기분해과정을 통하여 처리된 알칼리 환원수가 현행 먹는물관리법 소정의 ‘먹는물’에 해당되는지 여부에 대하여 재차 질의를 하자, 식품의약품안전청은 2006. 5. 25. 그 점에 대하여 위 법률의 소관부서인 환경부 수도정책과에 문의한 결과, 전기분해에 의하여 ‘먹는물’의 수소이온농도를 변경하였더라도 ‘먹는물 수질기준 및 검사 등에 관한 규칙’ 제2조 제1항 소정의 먹는물 수질기준(수소이온농도 5.8~8.5)에 적합하다면 음용하기에 적합한 ‘먹는물’로 볼 수 있을 것이라는 회신을 받자, 피고에게 “전기분해한 물일지라도 먹는물 수질기준에 적합한 것이라면 ‘먹는물’에 해당될 수 있으므로 식품공전 제3. 3. 1) (2)항 및 (6)항에 따라 식품제조용 용수로 사용가능하다”는 취지의 회신을 하였다.

㈑ 피고가 2006. 7. 26. 식품의약품안전청에 대해 전기분해과정을 거친 알칼리 환원수가 식품위생법상 식품제조 및 가공용 용수로 적합한지에 대하여 재차 질의하자, 식품의약품안전청은 2006. 8. 7. 환경부에 “①수질기준에 적합한 지하수가 ‘먹는물’ 또는 ‘먹는물’의 원수에 해당되는지, ②만일 지하수가 ‘먹는물’ 또는 ‘먹는물’의 원수에 해당되는 경우 이를 전기분해한 것이 먹는물 수질기준에 적합하다면 ‘먹는물’에 해당되는지, ③수질기준에 적합한 ‘먹는샘물’을 전기분해하여 먹는물 수질기준에 적합하다면 ‘먹는물’에 해당되는지” 등의 사항에 대하여 문의하였고, 이에 대하여 환경부는 식품의약품안전청에 “자연상태에서 수질기준에 적합한 지하수는 먹는물관리법에 따른 통상 사용하는 자연 상태의 물에 해당한다고 볼 수 있고, 수질기준에 적합하도록 전기분해처리한 지하수는 먹는물관리법 제3조 제1호 및 제3호 에 따라 통상 사용하는 자연 상태의 물과 ‘먹는샘물’에 해당되지 아니하며, ‘먹는샘물’이라 함은 암반대수층 안의 지하수 또는 용천수 등 수질의 안전성을 계속 유지할 수 있는 자연 상태의 물을 먹는데 적합하도록 물리적 처리 등의 방법으로 제조한 물을 말하므로 전기분해공정을 적용한 경우에는 ‘먹는샘물’에 해당되지 아니한다”는 내용의 회신을 하였다. 식품의약품안전청은 2006. 8. 25. 피고에게 환경부의 회신내용을 회신하였고, 2006. 9. 1. 피고에게 “식품제조·가공용 용수처리과정에 대한 사항은 식품위생법에 따라야 할 것으로 판단되고, 식품위생법에서는 제조용수의 용수처리방법에 대하여 별도로 규정하거나 제한을 하고 있지 않아 먹는물관리법 제5조 의 규정에 의한 ‘먹는물’의 수질기준에 적합하다면 현재로서는 음료 및 주류 등의 식품제조·가공용수로서 사용가능하다”는 내용의 회신을 하였다.

㈒ 피고는 2006. 8. 16. 및 2006. 8. 21. 국세청 기술연구소에 ‘①식품의약품안전청에서 전기분해한 소주의 용수가 먹는물관리법에 적합하지 않다는 이유로 식품위생법에 저촉되는 것으로 판단된다면 국세청에서는 소주 제조면허와 관련하여 어떤 판단을 하게 되는지, ②이 사건 소주에 대하여 제조면허를 함에 있어서 전기분해한 용수가 먹는물관리법에 적합하다는 증빙자료를 확인하지 않은 이유’ 등에 대하여 문의하였고, 국세청 기술연구소는 2006. 8. 23. 피고에게 “식품의약품안전청장이 해당 용수가 식품위생법에 저촉되어 유해하다고 해석한 사실이 없는 한 어떠한 판단도 할 수 없고, 전기분해한 용수에 대해서는 원고가 첨부한 ‘먹는물 수질기준 및 검사 등에 관한 규칙’ 제2조 의 수질기준에 적합한 수질검사성적서와 식품의약품안전청장의 2006. 1. 19.자 회신에 따라 양조용수(식품제조·가공용수)로 본 것이다”는 취지로 회신하였다.

㈓ 그 후 피고가 2006. 9. 21. 다시 환경부에 ‘먹는물관리법에 정해진 수질기준에 적합한 수소이온농도 8.0 미만의 지하수를 수소이온농도 8.5 미만의 전기분해수로 만들어 소주의 용수로 사용하면 이 전기분해수는 먹는물관리법에 정해진 먹는샘물에 적합한지 여부’에 대하여 질의하였고, 환경부는 2006. 9. 28. “자연 상태에서 수질기준에 적합한 지하수는 먹는물관리법에 따른 통상 사용하는 자연 상태의 물에 해당한다고 볼 수 있으나, 이를 수질기준에 적합하도록 전기분해 처리한 지하수는 먹는물관리법 제3조 제1호 및 제3호 에 따른 통상 사용하는 자연 상태의 물과 ‘먹는샘물’에 해당되지 않는다”는 취지로 회신하였다.

㈔ 피고는 2006. 11. 13. 환경부장관에게 소주에 사용된 전기분해한 물이 먹는물관리법상 적합한지 여부에 대하여 법제처에 관련법령의 해석을 요청하여 달라는 취지로 청원하였고, 이에 법제처에 관련법령의 해석을 의뢰하고 그 결과를 받은 식품의약품안전청장은 2007. 1. 23. 피고에게 “전기분해과정을 통하여 처리한 알칼리수는 먹는물관리법 제3조 에 의한 ‘먹는물’에 해당되는지 여부와 관계없이 같은 법 제5조 의 규정에 따른 먹는물의 수질기준에 적합하다면 식품위생법 제7조 의 규정에 의한 식품의 제조용수로 사용할 수 있다”는 법제처 법령해석결과를 송부하였다.

㈕ 피고는 원고를 상대로 서울중앙지방법원 2008카합2804호 로 이 사건 글들에서와 같은 취지의 주장을 하면서 원고의 제조면허 취득이 위법함을 이유로 이 사건 소주의 판매중지를 구하는 가처분신청을 하였으나, 위 법원은 2008. 10. 15. 원고의 제조면허 취득은 식품위생법 시행규칙 제40조 에 따른 것으로, 그 제조용수가 먹는물관리법상 ‘먹는물’에 해당하지 아니한다는 점만으로 위법하다고 볼 수 없고, 먹는물관리법 제5조 에 정한 수질기준을 충족하는 이상 수질위생상으로는 소비자들의 건강에 어떠한 위해가 발생될 우려가 있다고 보기 어렵다는 이유로 피고의 신청을 기각하는 결정을 하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 2, 6, 8 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 19, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 19 (including each number), the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration and the Director of the National Tax Service's Technical Research Institute for fact inquiry, and the whole purport of oral argument

(c) Related statutes;

(1) Liquor Tax Act

Article 6 (License for Alcoholic Beverages Manufacture)

(1) A person who desires to manufacture alcoholic beverages shall obtain a license for each manufactory by kinds of alcoholic beverages as prescribed in Article 4, from the head of the competent tax office after satisfying the criteria for facilities and other requirements prescribed by the

(2) Enforcement Decree of the Liquor Tax Act

Article 4 (License for Manufacture of Alcoholic Beverages)

(1) Those who intend to obtain a brewing engineer license pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of the Act shall submit (including a submission via the national tax information and communications networks) an application stating the following matters to the head of the competent tax office, along with the documents

4. Manufacturing methods;

(3) Food Sanitation Act

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. the term “food” means all kinds of food and drinks except those ingested as medicine;

Article 7 (Standards and Specifications)

(1) The Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration shall determine and publicly announce the standards for the methods of manufacturing, processing, using, cooking and preserving foods or food additives for sale and the specifications of ingredients of such foods or food additives, when deemed necessary for national health: Provided, That in cases of materials used for disinfection or disinfection of apparatus, containers and packages, which may be indirectly implemented in foods, among food additives, only the ingredients thereof may be publicly announced.

(2) With respect to foods or food additives (excluding additives which are chemical conformity goods directly used for foods), the standards and specifications of which are not publicly announced under paragraph (1), the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration may order manufacturers or processors of such foods or food additives to submit the standards for the methods of manufacturing, processing, using, cooking and preserving such foods or food additives and the standards for ingredients thereof, and recognize temporarily the standards and specifications of such foods or food additives, through an examination of such food sanitary inspection agency as designated under Article 18.

(4) Foods or food additives, the standards and specifications of which are determined under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2), shall be manufactured, imported, processed, used, cooked or preserved in accordance with such standards, and foods or food additives, the standards and specifications of which are not complied with, shall not be sold or manufactured, imported, processed, used, cooked, stored, transported, preserved or displayed for the purpose of sale.

Article 29 (Quality Control and Report)

(1) Any business operator who manufactures or processes foods or food additives and his/her employees shall observe matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the sanitary management of raw materials, manufacturing processes, and other foods, etc.

Article 31 (Matters to be Observed by Business Operators)

(1) Food service business operators and their employees as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall observe the matters prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare for the sanitary management and maintenance of order and promotion of national health and sanitation.

(4) Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act

Article 40 (Matters to be Observed by Manufacturers or processors of Foods and Food Additives)

Matters to be observed by a person who manufactures or processes foods and food additives under Articles 29 (1) and 31 (1) of the Act shall be as shown in attached Table 12. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 16943, Aug. 8, 2000>

[Attachment 12] Revised < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20834, Jun. 20, 2008>

Matters to be observed by manufacturers and processors of foods and food additives (related to Article 40)

10. When drinking water, etc., other than tap water, is used for manufacturing, processing, etc. drinking water or food, drinking water quality testing institutions under Article 43 of the Management of Drinking Water Act shall use drinking water recognized as fit for drinking time after undergoing an inspection according to the quality standards for drinking water under Article 5 of the Management of Drinking Water Act every year (six months in cases of food for drinking, such as drinking water).

(5) Drinking Water Management Act;

Article 3 (Definitions)

The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

1. The term "drinking water" means natural water commonly used for drinking purposes, and tap water, drinking spring water, deep sea drinking water, etc. treated to make natural water potable;

2. The term " spring water" means raw water to be used for drinking purposes in a natural state, which makes it possible to maintain the safety of water quality, such as groundwater or spring water in the rock aquifers;

3. The term "drinking spring water" means processed water to make spring water potable by means of physical treatment, etc.;

4. The term "deep sea drinking water" means processed water to make deep sea water defined in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Development and Management of Deep Sea Water Act potable by means of physical treatment, etc.;

Article 5 (Quality Control of Drinking Water)

(1) The Minister of Environment shall prepare policies necessary for controlling the quality of drinking water, such as determining and disseminating quality standards for drinking water.

(2) The Minister of Environment, the Special Metropolitan City Mayor, Metropolitan City Mayor, or Do Governor (hereinafter referred to as "Mayor/Do Governor") shall examine the quality of drinking water.

(3) Standards for and frequency of quality testing of drinking water shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment.

Article 43 (Designation of Inspection Agency)

(1) The Minister of Environment may designate an institution to inspect raw materials, products, containers, etc. collected pursuant to Article 42 (1) 3 and to examine the quality of drinking water pursuant to Article 5 (2). Where a designated institution (hereinafter referred to as "inspection institution") intends to change any important matter prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment, among designated matters, it shall file a report thereon with the Minister of Environment.

(2) Inspection institutions shall be classified into drinking water quality inspection institutions, water treatment chemical inspection institutions, quality inspection institutions for water purifiers and performance examination institutions for water purifiers.

(6) Enforcement Rule of the Drinking Water Management Act

Article 35 (Designation, etc. of Inspection Institutions)

(4) Any of the following institutions shall be deemed designated as an inspection institution of drinking water (excluding the field of virus and primary animal examination) and an inspection institution of water treatment chemicals:

1. The National Institute of Environmental Research;

2. Basin environmental offices or regional environmental offices;

3. City/Do Public Health and Environment Research Institute;

4. Waterworks research institutes and water quality inspectors of the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities;

(7) Miscellaneous;

In addition, Article 7 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, which is the notification of the Korea Food and Drug Administration under Article 7 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, provides that water used as food ingredients shall be suitable for the Management of Drinking Water in accordance with the common standards and specifications for food from May 2002 to the common standards and specifications for the general food, and that water used for the manufacturing, processing, and cooking of food shall be suitable for the Management of Drinking Water according to the common standards for the manufacturing and processing thereof. On June 19, 2007, Article 40 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act was amended to the Food and Drug Administration’s notification of Article 207-38 of the Food Sanitation Act to the effect that water used as food ingredients or water used for the manufacturing, processing, and cooking of food shall meet the quality standards for the Management of Drinking Water.

Article 5(3) of the Management of Drinking Water Act and Article 26(2) of the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act, which stipulate the quality standards for drinking water under Article 2(1) of the Regulations on the Quality Standards, Inspection, etc. of Drinking Water, are set by the standards for water quality based on various standards for microbes, materials harmful to health, organic materials, disinfection chemicals and disinfection by-products, and substances harmful to the aesthetic health, which require the concentration of hydrogen temperature between 5.8 and 8.5.

(d) Markets:

(1) The Korea Food and Drug Administration or the National Tax Service Technology Research Institute considered that, even if the water as raw water was changed to the hydrogen temperature concentration through the process of electrical decomposition, it would be suitable for drinking if it satisfies the water quality standards stipulated in relevant laws and regulations, so it would be possible to use the water for manufacturing food. Based on the judgment of the related agency, the head of Gangnam District Tax Office issued a license to the small owner of the instant small owner of the instant case. This is consistent with the interpretation of the Ministry of Government Legislation, which is an authoritative authoritative authority within the administration, that does not violate the Food Sanitation Act or its Enforcement Rule, which does not impose any restrictions on the source or treatment method, and there was no objection or objection against the illegality of the manufacture license of the instant small owner of the instant case from the Defendant and the Japanese Seoul New Newspapers Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co., Ltd. prior to withdrawal of the lawsuit.

Furthermore, on May 10, 2006, even if the Defendant changed the hydrogen ion concentration of drinking water through electrical decomposition in relation to the inquiry into the Ministry of Environment on May 10, 2006, he received a reply to the same purport from the Korea Food and Drug Administration on May 25, 2006, and received a reply to the same effect from the Korea Food and Drug Administration, and on August 23, 2006, the Commissioner of the Korea Food and Drug Administration could not make any determination unless the former dissatisfy water is interpreted as harmful to the Food and Drug Sanitation Act, and on January 23, 2007, the Alcophy water treated through the electrical decomposition process from the Ministry of Government Legislation through the Korea Food and Drug Administration to meet the standards for drinking water quality regardless of whether it falls under the "water quality" under Article 3 of the Drinking Water Management Act.

(2) On the other hand, in conducting a technical review at the request of the head of Gangnam District Tax Office, the National Tax Service Technical Research Institute requested the Plaintiff to supplement data on whether the Plaintiff has been certified to use the purified groundwater for alcoholic beverages and the water quality inspection report of drinking water. Accordingly, the Plaintiff issued a water quality inspection report from the Support of the Health and Environment Research Institute of Gangwon-do to the effect that the Plaintiff can use the alkyllogic water processed through the process of electrical decomposition to the Korea Food and Drug Administration as the manufacturing water for the manufacture of the alkic water, and the Korea Food and Drug Administration issued a new manufacturing license of this case to the Plaintiff, which was issued by the National Tax Service on January 19, 2006, to the effect that it is possible to use the alkic water processed through the process of electrical decomposition to the Korea Food and Drug Administration, and that it is possible to use the alkic water as the drinking water under subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the Management of Drinking Water Act to the Plaintiff.

The above request for the supplementation of the National Tax Service Technical Research Institute and the inquiry inquiry made by the Korea Food and Drug Administration as the starting point for the examination in relation to the license for the manufacture of the instant novel, first, whether the groundwater in the natural state can be artificially treated for the manufacture of a kind of food, which is the kind of water used for the manufacture of a kind of food. Second, it is understood that the water that the plaintiff intends to use as the manufacturing water for the manufacture of a kind of food is in compliance with the standards for the quality of water under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. However, if the wording of the inquiry inquiry is limited, the Korea Food and Drug Administration can only answer a kind of conditional answer that it is possible if it falls under the "drinking water" under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Drinking Water Management Act

Furthermore, the Korea Food and Drug Administration after granting the license for manufacturing the instant so-called “drinking water” under Article 3 of the Management of Drinking Water Act asked the Defendant to determine whether “drinking water,” which meets the water quality standards, falls under “drinking water,” as well as “drinking water,” even if the Defendant’s repeated questioning, and then asked the Ministry of Environment to determine whether “drinking water,” which meets the water quality standards, constitutes “drinking water,” and the Ministry of Environment provides that “drinking water,” under Article 3 of the Management of Drinking Water Act, means water produced by means of physical treatment, etc. so as to make it potable water suitable for drinking water, such as underground water inside the base water or spring water, etc. inside the base water. The Ministry of Environment responded to the same purport as the Defendant’s inquiry. As long as Article 3 of the Management of Drinking Water Act provides that “drinking water, drinking spring water, and deep sea drinking water,” at least, the Plaintiff’s request for the manufacture of the instant so-called “drinking water,” did not sufficiently meet the request of the Korea Food and Drug Administration to return to the level of drinking Water.

In addition, according to the food code at the time of the manufacture license for small liquor in this case, water used as food ingredients should be suitable for drinking water management, and water used for manufacturing, processing, and cooking according to the general standards of manufacturing, processing shall be suitable for drinking water management. However, on June 19, 2007, Article 40 of the Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (the notification of the Korea Food and Drug Administration by Article 2007-38 of the Food Sanitation Act) was amended to the effect that water used for manufacturing, processing, and cooking as food ingredients must meet the quality standards for drinking water. However, according to the evidence evidence evidence Eul or 12, the above food code provisions should be appropriate for drinking water quality standards as of May 2002, it should be amended to eradicate the "water drinking water" from May 200 to the effect that water used for manufacturing, processing, and cooking is suitable for drinking water.

(3) In light of the above circumstances, the defendant mainly added to the phrases written on the questioning reply from the related agency, and concluded that the license for manufacturing the instant tenant was illegal without any legal expert's advice, and puts the same article on his Internet website (attached Form 1). On the other hand, the defendant provided the Nonparty, who is a reporter belonging to the Japanese Seoul newspaper company, with the same information and provided the same information to the non-party, and made the article as described in attached Table 2 in the Japanese Seoul newspaper (attached Table 2) issued by the above company, and again puts the above article on his own tables, but on the other hand, it is reasonable to believe that the license for manufacturing the instant tenant was illegally granted.

(4) On the other hand, the Defendant’s writing written on one’s Internet Blob contains the following contents: “this is a chemically changed water even if the water is not contained,” “no clear research has been made to what effect the human body,” “whether it is legally reasonable to use the material most important to human body for drinking food by means of electricity and decomposition,” and “this is not merely a simple manufacturing water, but can be used for the manufacture and processing of all kinds of food, including beverages, because it is possible for children, sick, and male and female workers to use it as water for the manufacture and processing of all food, including beverages, for all children, sick, and female people who are not flobials.” This is nothing more than delivering a message to the effect that its stability should be sufficiently verified, and it cannot be deemed that there is a false fact that it is inconsistent with the truth.

Furthermore, an article published in Seoul newspaper is deemed to be harmful to the body of the small owner of the instant case, which is manufactured by adding electricly decomposed alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkic alkics.

(5) The articles posted by the Defendant on the Internet Blogs and the articles of Japanese Seoul Newspapers pointed out the problems in the process of issuing the manufacture license in relation to the safety of and eligibility for sowing water that citizens enjoy ordinarily. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the act of the Defendant to publish or prepare the above articles or articles is for public interest as matters concerning the public interest, in light of the content and method of other expressions, the content and the opposite party, and the circumstances where the Defendant printed or made the above articles or articles in bad faith.

(6) Therefore, even if it is necessary to verify the safety of alkyllogic water that the Defendant used to manufacture it as a manufacturing water, it is unlawful to issue a so-called alkyllogic water license, or even if it is damaged the Plaintiff’s honor or credit by providing information on the same content to the Japanese Seoul newspaper company, and by allowing the article to be published in the Japanese Seoul newspaper, it is dismissed as it is an act for the public interest at least for a considerable reason to believe that it is true.

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.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)