1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff B is the representative director of Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and Defendant C is the reporter of the E press, Defendant D is the reporter of the F press, and Nonparty G is the Plaintiff’s wife and Nonparty G is the non-standing registration director of Plaintiff Co., Ltd.

B. On April 3, 2016, Plaintiff B is an administrative agency established with the aim of promoting the advancement of the Financial Services Commission and the stabilization of financial markets in connection with the sale and purchase of stocks, and establishing sound credit order and fair financial transaction practices, and shall direct and supervise the Financial Supervisory Service as a result of the deliberation and resolution on major financial supervisory matters.

On the 12th of the same month, the capital market investigation deliberation committee, which is an advisory organization related to the affiliated unfair trade, was present at the Securities and Futures Commission and investigated.

C. However, around May 1, 2017, Defendant D posted an article of the same content as indicated in attached Table 1 as “H” in the “F Press,” which is an Internet medium, as “H,” on May 1, 2017. On May 1, 2017, Defendant C posted an article of the same content as indicated in attached Table 2 in the “E Press” as “I” on the Internet media (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant articles”). D. The main contents of the Defendants’ reports were as follows: (a) Plaintiff B, the representative of the Plaintiff Company listed in CFE, was informed of the material nonpublic information of the said company on January 1, 2016 and filed a complaint against the prosecution by the Securities and Futures Commission as a suspicion of violating the prohibition of the use of undisclosed information by allowing his/her female to use it in selling and selling the Plaintiff Company’s shares.

G received related information from the B representative and sold approximately KRW 380,00 ( approximately 5.36 million) of A’s shares through the account in its own name, and as a result, the assessment agencies are aware that B and G were able to avoid losses that amount to approximately 1.4 billion won.

‘ was the case.'

E. Meanwhile, the prosecution was accused of violating the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.