1. Defendant C Co., Ltd.:

A. Within 14 days from the date the judgment of this case became final and conclusive, H 12 pages of the society of December 2, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties 1) Plaintiff B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”)

(2) As an affiliate of the K Group, the Plaintiff is the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, and the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant newspaper company”) is a newspaper company that issues the weekly newspaper “H”. Defendant D is the representative director and the publisher of the Defendant newspaper company; Defendant E is the editor; Defendant F is the editor; Defendant G L is the editing director; and Defendant G is the franchise.

B. On December 2, 2013, the Defendant newspaper company published the Defendants’ news articles “H” on December 2, 2013, under the title “I” in the 12th page of the “H” society, there is suspicion that B, known as the so-called “M Public Procurement Service,” which vicariously executes orders for the purchase and placement of all subsidiaries affiliated with M, including the interior language, has been receiving a large amount of rebates from material suppliers, etc. under the pretext of fees. Furthermore, the prosecutorial office has reported that the rebates had been regularly provided. This kind of paper states, “The Defendant newspaper company is aware that B, which is theM subsidiary, has played a role as one of the fund lines of the reverse M MM subsidiaries. It is doubtful that this company, “this company, as it is a company supervising all M-related companies, including the management of facilities, orders for purchase, etc. of all M-related companies, including the National Unit Association, was known to the representative of B (59) in 2011, the representative of the NN’s neighboring construction works, general facilities and distribution, etc.

The prosecutor's office is likely to have raised a large amount of non-financing through this company, and it has been transferred to the prosecution's office in progress on B.

In addition, the prosecution ordered the O development project which was conducted in approximately 4 billion in June 2006, and it has given a large amount of rebates from the related companies.