beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The status of Defendant B is a terrestrial broadcasting company that broadcasts “FTV”, and Defendant C is a company that provides digital content related to Defendant B’s broadcast program through its website (E).
The plaintiff is the president of the G Group H (Death in 2014).
B. On December 6, 2016, Defendant B broadcasted “I” through the “D” program, and the composition and content of the report are as follows.
(2) The report of this case contains an internal mechanism among 8 seconds in the process of introducing a summary of the report of this case (hereinafter “the report of this case”). The report of this case was made to eradicate the use of 3 parts of Magphones in the criminal investigation of the so-called “J case” related to the use of Magphones by the persons involved in the so-called “J case,” and the development of the report of this case (hereinafter “the report of this case”), while introducing “the cases where Magphones are controversial among the criminal cases in which social interest is concentrated,” the report of this case contains approximately 30 parts of Magphones at the time of flight.” The contents of H related to the report of this case are the entire operation.
C. The Defendant C providing a new news service is providing a new news service of the instant report on its website (E).
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 5's entry, Gap 1's video, the purport of whole pleading
2. The Defendants, the Plaintiff’s assertion media company, infringed the H’s personality right by expressing false facts that “H used 300 mobile phones at the time of flight” through the instant report. As such, the Defendants are obliged to broadcast and publish a correction report as indicated in attached Form 2.
(A) The plaintiff is also seeking indirect enforcement of corrective reports. 3. Determination
A. First of all, we examine whether the Defendants publicly indicate the fact that “H used 300 mobile phones at the time of flight” through the instant report.
As seen earlier, H. H. of the instant report.