1. Plaintiff 1, among the damages claims part in the judgment of the court of first instance, falls under the money ordering additional payments below.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except in cases where part of the judgment of the first instance is re-written or added as set forth in the following 2. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. 제1심 판결문을 다시 쓰거나 추가하는 부분 ▣ 제1심 판결문 7쪽 12째 줄의 “AU”을 “Q”으로 고쳐 쓴다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 9쪽 13째 줄의 “100,000,000원”, 14째 줄의 “100,000,000원”은 각 “30,000,000원”으로, 14째 줄의 “100,000,000”은 “30,000,000”으로 다시 쓴다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 10쪽 7째 줄의 “을다 4호증의 기재만으로는”을 “을다 4호증의 기재 및 당심 증인 AZ의 증언만으로는”으로 다시 쓴다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 17쪽 14째 줄의 “그 위자료 액수를”부터 18쪽 3째 줄 마지막 부분까지를 아래와 같이 다시 쓴다.

It is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 12,00,000, respectively, in respect of the news of this case, the broadcast of this case, and Defendant Chosun Broadcasting, and the news of this case.

Therefore, with respect to Defendant Seacom, B, and C who reported the article of this case to the Plaintiff as joint tortfeasor, jointly with KRW 12,00,000,000, Defendant Shipbuilding Broadcasting, D, E, and F, which reported the broadcast of this case as joint tortfeasor, and Defendant Daily Broadcasting, which reported the news of this case to the Plaintiff, as joint tortfeasor, was 12,00,000,000 as joint tortfeasor, and the part cited in the first instance trial among △△, as joint tortfeasor, of KRW 12,00,00,00 as tort, and the part of Defendant Seacom, B, and C’s daily broadcast of this case as cited in the first instance trial among △△△, and KRW 3,00,000,00 as to Defendant’s daily broadcast of this case, it is reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of performance obligation of the Defendants from the date of tort to December 17, 201, which is the first instance court’s judgment.