1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in Paragraph 2, and the reasons for the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the court’s decision of the first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s assertion as stated in Paragraph 3, and as such, it is identical to the reasoning of the court’s decision of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

2. Defendant E or Defendant E shall be deemed to be “Defendant E” and Defendant F shall be deemed to be “Defendant” and Defendant E shall be deemed to be “F”, respectively, in the form of “F.”

Part 8, Parts 19 through 9 are as follows.

B. Examining the following circumstances revealed through the facts as seen earlier in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s expression of opinion that the Plaintiff needs to explain the Plaintiff’s suspicions of the Plaintiff’s former chief secretary at the time of the instant newspaper and Internet news article reporting that the Plaintiff and V, the chief secretary at the time of the publication of the instant newspaper and Internet news article, was involved in the corruption regarding the contract for construction works for Obable Development Project. Moreover, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff stated the title of “R” and the title of “N” in the instant newspaper and Internet news article and posted the Plaintiff’s photograph as a separate statement of the fact that the Plaintiff was involved in the corruption regarding the contract for construction works for Obable block development project separately from the main text.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on this premise is without merit.

① The overall contents of the instant newspaper and Internet articles are suspicions that the president of the native folk group, who had been elected by the Plaintiff’s first market, has been able to obtain approximately KRW 13 billion subcontracting construction in relation to the instant lux development project, and there is a need for the Plaintiff’s explanation as to such suspicions.

② The instant case.