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

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

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a corporation that is engaged in the real estate sales business, etc., and operates the F Hotel, etc. in Jeju City E (hereinafter “instant hotel”). The Defendant is a broadcasting company that broadcasts B, which operates the Internet news website (D).

On January 6, 2018, the Defendant reported the same content as shown in attached Table 2 in the “C” program, which was broadcasted on January 6, 2018, under the title “G”.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant report”). [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap’s evidence No. 1, and assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings by the plaintiff, the defendant, via the instant report, damaged the plaintiff’s reputation by openly expressing the following false facts.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to make corrective reports and damages.

(A) In addition, the Plaintiff is also seeking indirect enforcement of corrective reports against the Defendant. / [mark] : (1) Some hotel operators set up a floating company in the name of their family members and deducted funds.

② According to the employee employment contract of the hotel of this case, other companies (H Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “H”) that are not the head office of the hotel appear in the employer. The address of the pertinent company includes a factory without any special relationship.

③ Part of the sales of the hotel of this case is missing from this age company (H on the receipt).

④ In the end, the Plaintiff would like to collect money from the end point of arrival and then file a petition for bankruptcy and to escape.

(5) The chairperson of a hotel operating company shall live a friendly life.

According to the judgment on a request for a corrective statement [mark] ①, ②, ③ factually, according to the report of this case, the Defendant appeared to the user, other than the hotel head office (Plaintiff) according to the employee labor contract of the hotel of this case. The Defendant’s domicile includes a factory that does not have any relation to the business.