1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the person who was the chairperson of the E business implemented in the D Village, and the defendant is a press company that issued C.

B. On December 13, 2016, the Defendant published the article in attached Form 2(1) prepared by Nonparty F, the reporter of Nonparty F, who belongs to C, as well as the article in attached Form 2(2) written by F, as of February 24, 2017, respectively.

(hereinafter “each article of this case”). C.

At the request of the Plaintiff, the Defendant made a counterargument report to C on March 10, 2017, as of December 13, 2016. However, on May 17, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Press Arbitration Commission to make a correction report and compensation for damages, and filed an application for the correction report and compensation for damages under Article 18 of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies for Damage Caused by Press Arbitration (hereinafter “ Press Arbitration Act”) with the Press Arbitration Commission. Around July 10, 2017, the Defendant raised an objection against the decision in lieu of conciliation of the Press Arbitration Commission on June 30, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7, 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Among the articles of this case asserted by the Plaintiff, the part that the Plaintiff affixed a seal on the written consent without the village residents’ permission, and the part that the Plaintiff was harshly purchasing used machinery constitutes a statement of false facts about the Plaintiff.

Therefore, in accordance with the Press Arbitration Act, the defendant should make a corrective report on the false part among the articles of this case, and the plaintiff's reputation has been damaged due to the false report.

B. As to whether a statement constitutes a statement of a fact subject to defamation or a corrective report, the relevant legal doctrine is permitted where a press report on a factual assertion is not true, and thus, in order to determine the legitimacy of the claim, the original report, which the Plaintiff considered as the subject of the corrective report, should first be considered whether it pertains to a factual assertion or simple expression of opinion.