Whether or not a school is able to seek a corrective statement

With respect to the ability of a party to exercise the right to claim a corrective report, even in the case of a school where the party's ability is not recognized under the Civil Procedure Act, such party's ability is recognized as a social replacement being one of the social units.

Article 47 of the Civil Procedure Act

Applicant

Respondent Corporation

1. The respondent, upon receipt of this judgment, shall publish a correction report in the form of six parts of the central part of the "(title omitted) newspaper", in the form of about 10 centimeters wide, and in the form of about 10 centimeters wide, in the form of about 0 centimeters wide, "the correction report", and in the name of the requester for the correction report and the name of the requester for the correction report, in the form of six (6) participants, on the left side.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the respondent;

1. The respondent argues that the applicant's welfare high school or the head of the welfare high school is merely a public institution or the manager of the public institution operated by the school foundation and has no capacity to be a party under the Civil Procedure Act. However, according to the statement of the complaint submitted by the applicant on January 16, 1984, the applicant is a natural person who is in the principal of the welfare high school. Thus, the above respondent's assertion is groundless (as for the party's ability to exercise the right to claim a corrective report, it is a social individual who works as a unit of social life even in the case of a school where the party's ability is not recognized under the Civil Procedure Act,

2. Under the title "An assistant principal of a high school level issued by the respondent" at the center of three pages of the newspaper (title omitted) dated December 5, 1983, the Respondent proposed that the principal of the school during welfare and the principal of the school does not issue a written application for a school entrance examination for 84 years to the students at an average of not more than 60 points among those scheduled to attend the school among those scheduled to be enrolled in the school, and that four-year attending the school, such as the first assistant principal, etc., of the Respondent, should be inventories at an educational level. The Claimant had the initial policy of the Respondent, but on September 28, 1983, the Claimant had the Respondent issued an additional written application to the school according to the parent's authenticity. The Claimant determined that this is related to the status of the Claimant of the Respondent, and that the Respondent was not related to the Respondent's removal of the assistant principal from his position as the Respondent's assistant principal for reasons other than the Respondent's breach of duty.

The respondent stated that he/she was removed from his/her position by the applicant other than the school juristic person, and was removed from his/her office; 1; 2; 3; 1; 4; 1; 3; 1; 4; 1; 4; 4; 4; 7; 4; ; 1; 4; 4; ; 7; 4; ; 4; 4; ; 1; 4; 4; 4; ; 4; 4; 4; 4; 1; 1; 3; 1; 1; 3; 1; 3; 4; 1; 3; 4; 1; 3; 4; 1; 3; 4; 3; 4; 3; 4; 4; 3; 4; 4; 4; 3; 4; 4; 3; 4; 4; 4; 4; 4; 4; 4; 4; 4; ; 4; 4; 4; 4; ; 4; ; 4; 4; ; ; 4; ; and 4; and ;

3. Therefore, the respondent is obligated to publish a correction report to the applicant who suffered damage from the above article published in the newspaper (title omitted), which is the periodical published by the respondent, unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, the respondent's main application for the implementation is justified, and the cost of the application is borne by the respondent, who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Omission of Correction]

Judge Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)