Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Jeong, Attorney Kim Jong-Un, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Hann, Attorneys Kim U-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 3

Defendant 4 and one other (Law Firm Dak, Attorney Hong Sung-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 6 and two others

Defendant 9 and three others (Attorney Kim Tae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 13 and two others (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 16, 2014

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap34257 Decided May 15, 2013

1. The part concerning defendant 1 among the judgment of the court of first instance

A. All appeals by the plaintiffs and defendant 1 are dismissed.

B. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

2. The part concerning defendant 2 in the judgment of the first instance

A. Revocation of the part against Defendant 2’s loss, and all of the plaintiffs’ claims corresponding to the revoked part are dismissed.

B. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

C. All costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

3. The portion of money payment to Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 and Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd. in the judgment of the first instance;

A. The part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of additional payment shall be revoked.

1) Defendant 3 and Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 5 million won with 5% interest per annum from March 27, 2012 to August 8, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2) Defendants 4 and New Daily Co., Ltd. shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 5 million won with 5% interest per annum from March 27, 2012 to August 8, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

B. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining appeals is dismissed.

C. Each appeal by Defendant 4 and Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd is dismissed.

D. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder 60% is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

E. The above paragraph (a) can be provisionally executed.

4. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part as to Defendant 6 and Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

A. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

B. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

5. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part regarding the defendant 7 and the defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

A. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

B. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

6. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part as to Defendant 8 (Counter-board: Defendant 7) and Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

A. The part against the plaintiffs falling under the order to pay below shall be revoked.

Defendant 8 and Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. pay to each of the Plaintiffs the amount of KRW 10 million with 5% per annum from March 27, 2012 to August 8, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals against the defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

C. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder 60% is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

D. The above paragraph (a) can be provisionally executed.

7. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part as to Defendant 9 (boardboard: Defendant 8) and Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

A. The part against the above Defendants shall be revoked, and all plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revocation part shall be dismissed.

B. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

C. All costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

8. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the payment of money by Defendant 10 (alternatives: Defendant 9) and by Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., and by Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

A. The part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of additional payment shall be revoked.

Defendant 10, Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd, and Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. pay each of the Plaintiffs 6 million won with 5% interest per annum from March 27, 2012 to August 8, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining appeals is dismissed.

C. Each of the above defendants' appeals is dismissed.

D. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder 60% is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

E. The above paragraph (a) can be provisionally executed.

9. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part as to Defendant 13 (the non-party 7), Defendant Lee Woo-man Co., Ltd., and Defendant Central Daily Co., Ltd.

A. Each of the plaintiffs' appeals is dismissed.

B. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

10. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the corrective reports on Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding, and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. shall be modified as follows:

A. Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., within seven days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, shall publish the title of the correction report in the upper part of the list of the articles on the initial screen of the Internet newspaper New Daily (http:/www.ne.co.co., Ltd) at the website for 48 hours (attached Form 1), and if such character is greater, the contents of the correction report shall be searched, and even at the bottom of the main body of the news report, the said correction report shall be searched together with the news subject to the correction report, and the size and active itself of the title and main body of the correction report shall be published in the same manner as each news subject to the correction report, and after 48 hours have elapsed, the said correction report shall be stored and searched in the database of the article.

Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd. fails to perform the above obligations, it will pay to the Plaintiffs the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following the deadline to the day the performance is completed.

B. Within 7 days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant Digital Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.: (a) by inserting the title of the correction report for 48 hours (attached Form 2) at the top of the top of the list of articles on the front page of the Internet newspaper Chosun.com (htp:/www. Sun.com) on its website; (b) by inserting the title of the correction report for 48 hours; (c) by inserting the said correction report at the bottom of the main body of the news subject to the correction report, and then inserting the said correction report at the bottom of the main body of the news subject to the correction report so that it can be searched with the news subject to the correction report; and (d) by inserting the size of the characters and the active entity of the title and main body in the same manner as each news subject to the correction report; and (e)

If Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. fails to perform the above obligation, it shall pay to the Plaintiffs the money calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following the due date until the due date.

C. Within seven days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. published a correction report (attached Form 3) in the article publishing the article excluding the advertisement column for the social aspect of the Chosun Daily. The title of the correction report is class 24, class 24, class 3, class 2, class 18, class 18, class 18, and class 18, class

In the event that Defendant Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. did not perform the above obligations, it will pay to the Plaintiffs the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following the deadline to the day of performance.

D. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

E. Of the total litigation costs, 40% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder 60% is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

A. For the plaintiffs:

1) Defendants 1 and 2 respectively: 50 million won;

2) A) Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd.: 100 million won;

B) Defendants 3 and 4 each out of the amounts described in paragraphs (a) and (a) above with Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd.;

3) A) Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. amounting to KRW 150 million;

B) Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, and Defendant 10, respectively, out of the amounts described in paragraph (a) above, KRW 30 million, among the amount described in the Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.;

4) A) Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. amounting to KRW 60 million;

B) Defendant 6 and Defendant 10 are KRW 30 million out of the amount described in each of the above paragraph (a) above and each of the above paragraph (a) of the Defendant Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.;

(5) Defendant 13) 60 million won,

B) Defendant 13 and 30 million won out of the amount described in paragraph (a) above between Defendant 13 and Defendant 13 and Defendant 13

In addition, with respect to each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from March 27, 2012 to the rendering of a judgment in the first instance, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment day.

B. 1) Defendant New Daily, Inc., from the date of delivery of the judgment of the first instance court, shall indicate the title of the correction report in [Attachment 4] on the top of the list of news articles on the front page of the Internet newspaper New Daily (htp:/www/www.newd.co.kr) on the website of the first instance court, and shall be inserted for 48 hours, and the contents of the correction report shall be searched if the correction report is charactered, and the contents of the correction report shall be searched. The correction report shall be inserted in the bottom of the main body of the news article subject to the correction report so that it may be searched together with the news article subject to the correction report, and the size and active itself of the items and main body of the correction report shall be inserted in the same manner as each news article subject to the correction report, and after 48 hours have elapsed, the above correction report shall be stored in the database of

B) The Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd.: (a) by inserting the title of the correction report in [Attachment 5] on the top of the list of articles on the front page of the Internet newspaper Chosun.com (htp:/www. www. Sun.com)’s homepage for forty-eight hours from the date of delivery of the judgment of the first instance court; (b) by inserting it in [Attachment 5], the contents of the correction report should be searched; and (c) also at the bottom of the main text of the correction report, the said correction report may be searched with the news subject to the correction report; (d) by inserting the said correction report at the bottom of the main text of the correction report; and (e) by inserting the same as the news subject to the correction report; and (e) the size and vitality of the title and main text of the correction report at least forty eight hours after

C) When Defendant ACCB Co., Ltd. puts the title of the correction report in [Attachment 6] on the top of the list of articles on the front page of the Internet newspaper central library (htp:/www. joint and several pages. Sn.com) on the website of the first instance court for 48 hours from the date of service of the judgment, the contents of the correction report should be searched, and the contents of the correction report should be searched at the bottom of the article on the correction report, and the correction report should be searched with the article on the correction report by inserting the correction report at the bottom of the main text of the article on the correction report, and the size and vitality of the title and main text of the correction report should be searched with each of the articles on the correction report. After 48 hours from the date of service of the first instance court, the above correction report shall be published in the same manner as the article on the news database

2) If Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd., Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding, Defendant Lee Hybrid Co., Ltd. fails to perform each of the obligations under paragraph (1) of the above Article, the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following the due date to the completion of the performance shall be paid to the Plaintiffs.

C. 1A) Within 7 days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. published a correction report (attached Form 7) on the article publication (attached Form 7), except for the social aspects of Chosun Shipbuilding, in its title 24, in its class 24, in its class 24, in its class 3, in its class 18, in its class 18, in its class

B) Within seven days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant Central Daily Co., Ltd. published a correction (attached Form 8) on the article publishing the article excluding the social aspects of Central Daily (attached Form 8) within seven days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the title of the correction is 24 class high-class DNA, and the main text is 18 class 18 class lux

2) In the event that Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. and Defendant Central Daily Co., Ltd. fail to perform their respective obligations under paragraph (1) of the above Article, they shall pay to the Plaintiffs the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following the deadline until the completion date

2. The purport of the plaintiffs' appeal

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the order of corrective report shall be revoked.

B. As to the plaintiffs:

1) Defendants 1 and 2 respectively: 15 million won;

2) A) Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd.: 30 million won;

B) Defendants 3 and 4: (a) each of the amounts described in paragraph (a) above with Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd.; (b) KRW 15 million;

3) A) Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. amounting to KRW 50 million;

B) Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, and Defendant 10, respectively, out of the amounts described in paragraph (a) of the Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., and each of them KRW 10 million;

4) A) Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. 20 million won;

B) Defendant 6 and Defendant 10 KRW 10 million out of the amount described in each of the above paragraph (a) above and each of the amount set forth in the above paragraph (a) of the Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.;

(5) Defendant 13) 13 is KRW 10 million;

B) Of the amounts described in paragraph (a) above, Defendant Lee Jong-soo Co., Ltd. and Defendant Central Daily Co., Ltd., the amount of KRW 5 million each among the amounts described in paragraph (a) above and paragraph (a) above

In addition, with respect to each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from March 27, 2012 to the date of a judgment of the court of the parties, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

C. 1) If Defendant C&CB Co., Ltd. carries a title of the correction report for 48 hours (attached Form 6) at the top of the top of the list of articles on the front page of the Internet newspaper central library (htp:/www. joint and several TV setssn.com) within 7 days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the contents of the correction report should be searched, and if it characters at the top of the list, the contents of the correction report should be searched, and even at the bottom of the main text of the correction report, the correction report should be searched together with the news subject to the correction report, and the size of the characters and the characteristics of the main text of the correction report should be inserted in the same manner as the news subject to the correction report, and after 48 hours have elapsed, the above correction report should be stored in the database and searched.

2) In the event that Defendant Locul Tracul did not perform the obligations under the above paragraph, the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per day from the day after the deadline to the day when the implementation is completed shall be paid to the Plaintiffs.

D. 1) Defendant Central Daily Co., Ltd. published a correction report (attached Form 8) on the article publishing the article excluding the social side advertising column of Central Daily, in the form of title 24, in the form of a class 24, in the form of a class 24, in the form of a class 18, in the form of a class 18, in the form of a

2) If Defendant Central Daily Co., Ltd. fails to perform the obligations under the above paragraph, it shall pay to the Plaintiffs the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following the deadline to the day the performance is completed.

3. The purport of appeal by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd, and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

Each part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including branch numbers).

[1]

From May 2008 to December 201, 201, Plaintiff 1 served as a member of the 18th National Assembly belonging to ○○○○○○○○ Party, and served as the representative of ○○○○○○○○ Party from July 2010, and from around December 201 to May 2012, Plaintiff 1 was working as a member of the National Assembly belonging to △△△△△△△△△ Party and was working as the representative of △△△△△△△△△△ Party from around December 2011.

○○ Plaintiff 2 is the husband of Plaintiff 1 and is working as a joint representative attorney at △△ Law Firm (LLC).

[2]

around 2009, Defendant 1 opened the △△△△△△△, which was the representative of Defendant 1.

Between March 21, 2012 and March 24, 2012, Defendant 1 prepared and posted a letter related to the Plaintiffs, as shown in attached Form 9, on his Twitter account (Internet address 1 omitted).

[3]

At the time of the election of the National Assembly member of the 19th National Assembly in 2012, Defendant 2 was a representative of the Central Election of △△△ Party, and was elected in the election.

○피고 2는 위 중앙선대위 대변인 당시인 2012. 3. 25. ☆☆☆당 인터넷 홈페이지(인터넷 주소 2 생략)에 〈실체 드러난 △△△△당의 ‘▽▽▽▽연합’, ‘민주’, ‘진보’의 가면을 쓰고 총선 나선다. ♤♤♤♤당도 눈치 보며 끌려다니는 현실, 현명한 국민은 ‘두 당 야합’의 본색을 안다〉는 제목으로 [별지 10]과 같이 원고들에 관련된 내용의 성명을 작성·게시하였다.

[4]

○○ Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd. is a corporation that operates online newspaper “New Daily” (htp:/www.newdily.co.), and Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 are reporters belonging to Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd.

On March 26, 2012, Defendant 3 prepared and posted an article related to the plaintiffs, as shown in attached Form 11, as the title, the non-party 4 should work in the same calendar when the plaintiff 1 earth and sand districts were expanded in the above online newspaper New Daily.

On March 27, 2012, Defendant 4 drafted and published an article related to the plaintiffs, as shown in attached Form 12, as the title ‘The Jongbuk-do> of Plaintiff 1 and two couple of Plaintiff 2:

[5]

○○○ Co., Ltd. is a corporation operating online newspaper “htt........” The Digital Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. is a corporation that issues the “cl..........” The Digital Chosun Co., Ltd. is a reporter who belongs to Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, and Defendant 10.

On March 24, 2012, 2012, Defendant 6 drafted and inserted an article related to Plaintiff 1, as shown in [Attachment 13], in the title of ‘The organization of the online newspaper Chosun.com and in the above daily newspaper Chosun Korea and the above daily newspaper Chosun Korea, ‘Plaintiff 1' as the title ‘The face Margu>

On March 24, 2012, 2012, Defendant 7: (a) “Plaintiff 1’s “Non-Party 1” written and posted an article related to the Plaintiffs as the title “Defendant 1’s Anti-Gambin> (Attachment 14).”

On March 25, 2012, Defendant 8 prepared and posted an article related to the plaintiffs, such as attached Form 15, as Defendant 1, “Defendant 1,” as the title “New Fromana” (No. 15).

○피고 9는 2012. 3. 25. 위 인터넷신문 조선닷컴에 〈☆☆☆ 피고 2 대변인 “▽▽▽▽연합, 국회 움켜쥐려 해”〉라는 제목으로 [별지 16]과 같이 원고들에 관련된 내용의 기사를 작성·게재하였다.

On March 26, 2012, Defendant 10 prepared and published an article related to the Plaintiffs as shown in [Attachment 17] as “Plaintiff 1 husband” in [Attachment 16] on the said online newspaper shipbuilding.com and the above daily shipbuilding day of the above online newspaper.”

[6]

○○ Defendant Cuber Co., Ltd. is a corporation operating online newspaper “Central Daily” (http/www/www. joint and several TWang Yn.com) and Defendant Central Daily Co., Ltd. is a corporation issuing the “Central Daily Daily.” Defendant 13 is a reporter belonging to Defendant EcCbler Trab and Defendant Central Daily Co., Ltd.

On March 27, 2012, 2012, Defendant 13 drafted and inserted a forum for the contents related to the plaintiffs, such as attached Form 18, as the title "The reason why the calendar rejected Plaintiff 1."

2. Claim against the defendant 1;

A. Defendant 1’s Twitter notice

Defendant 1 posted the same article as attached Form 9 on his Twitter account between March 21, 2012 and March 24, 2012.

피고 1은 위 게시글에서, 『원고 1 뒤를 이을 주사파 차새대 아이돌 소외 4가 당선된 △△당 청년비례 선거조작, 이게 더 큰 문제인데』 , 『종북 주사파의 조직 특성상 원고 1에게는 판단할 권리조차 없을 겁니다. 조직에서 시키는대로 따라하는 거죠. ▽▽▽▽연합에서 원고 1로 버티고 가겠다고 결정했으면 그 길로 가는 겁니다.』 , 『원고 1이 ▽▽▽▽연합의 마스코트에 불과하다면, 소외 10은 그 조직의 기둥쯤 되는 인물입니다.』 , 『원래 원고 1은 위에서 판단 내려주면 이를 대중적 선동하는 기술만 배운 마스코트예요. 문제는 원고 1 남편 원고 2가죠. 아마 나이 차가 열 살 넘을 겁니다. 종북파의 성골쯤 되는 인물입니다.』 , 『원고 1은 남편과 함께 ▽▽▽▽ 그 자체입니다.』 , 『제가 아는 바로는 대학 1학년 때부터 ▽▽▽▽연합에서 원고 1을 찍었고, 남편 원고 2 등이 대중선동 능력만 집중적으로 가르쳐서 아이돌 스타로 기획했습니다.』 , 『▽▽▽▽연합이 실제로 머리 역할하는 원고 2, 소외 5 대신 이들의 부인인 원고 1, 소외 4를 얼굴마담으로 내세우는 건, 김정일이 미녀응원단 돌리는 것과 똑같은 발상으로 보입니다.』 , 『원고 1 남편 원고 2가 ▽▽▽▽연합의 브레인이자 이데올로그라는 점은 다들 알고 있습니다. 6·25 남침을 정면에서 부정하는 인물이죠.』, 『원고 1 남편이 자신은 ▽▽▽▽의 이데올로그란 게 코메디라는데, 소외 6 가짜론, 6·25 남침 부인론 만들어내는 게 이데올로그의 역할이지 뭡니까?』 『원고 1 남편 원고 2가 2004년 12월에 발표한 6·25 남침을 부정하는 〈국가보안법의 전제인 북한에 의한 무력남침, 적화통일론의 허구성〉이란 논문, 이게 주사파 ▽▽▽▽의 입장이지요.』, 『저는 원고 2가 이데올로그라 표현했어요, ▽▽▽▽의 종북담론을 만들어낸 건 팩트니, 문제 없죠.』라고 하였다.

B. The plaintiffs' assertion

Although there was no fact that the Plaintiffs joined the organization called the “▽▽▽▽▽”, Defendant 1, in the aforementioned Twitter bulletin, was affiliated with the Plaintiffs’ organization as the “pro-North Korea”, and Defendant 2 stated false facts as if Plaintiff 2 served as the head’s head’s role, and Plaintiff 1 were aware of false facts as if they were to have a face fenced, and damaged the Plaintiffs’ honor by designating the Plaintiffs as pro-North Korea and North Korea North Korea. In addition, Defendant 1, in the aforesaid Twitter bulletin, made a discriminative insult, on the grounds that Defendant 1 did not have any right to know. Accordingly, Defendant 1 had the duty to pay consolation money for tort against the Plaintiffs.

(c) Fact of recognition;

As seen above, Defendant 1 refers to “pro-North Korea”, “North Korea”, “North Korea”, and “North ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽”) with respect to the Plaintiffs in his Twitter account as seen above. In addition, the following facts are recognized in full view of the following: evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1 to 39, evidence No. 1 to 39, evidence No. 1 to 8, evidence No. 1 to 10, evidence No. 1 to 10, and evidence No. 1 and No. 2 (including the number of branch numbers).

[1]

around January 200, 00 ○○○○ Party was the formation of the Yonhap News, and on December 21, 2001, the article of the title ‘Yan Sea> ‘Yan Sea>, as in the case of the pro-North Korean forces, was published as follows (No. 9).

■ 최근 ○○○○당과 치열한 ‘반(반) 조선노동당’ 논쟁을 벌였던 ♡♡당(대표 소외 11)은 민중의 요구보다 조선노동당의 외교정책을 우위에 놓는 종북(종북) 세력과는 함께 당(당)을 할 수 없다고 주장했다.

■ ♡♡당의 소외 11 대표는 널리 일반화된 “친북”(친북)이라는 표현 대신 “종북”(종북)이라는 신조어를 사용하는 이유와 관련, 친북세력에는 종북세력 즉 조선노동당 추종세력 말고도 북한과 친해지자고 주장하는 사람들도 포함되기 때문이라고 설명했다.

In the election of the 17th National Assembly member, around April 2004, 10 candidates (2 local constituencies, 8 proportional representative members) who belong to ○○○○○ party were elected. On October 26, 2006, the article of the title, "Minma," "Minma," "New News," "The news," should be independent from the Triju and North Twit line, was inserted into the following contents (No. 23).

A ○○○○ Party is a principal sect, which is a final sect? There are those who new principal sect in Korean society. However, it is not possible to provide that autonomous sect is a whole sect.

■ 종북파라는 호칭 또한 갖다 대기에 알맞지는 않다. 올해 지방선거를 앞두고 북조선이 사실상의 ●●●●당 투표권유라고 할 수 있는‘반 ▲▲▲ 전선’을 남한 인민들에게 주문했을 때, 자주파에 속하는 ○○○○당원들도 이를 비판한 적이 있었다.

In the case of ○○○○○ Party, the decentralization should be independent of the North Korean fishing boat.In the case of the unconstitutionality, the arbitrariness is also the arbitrariness and the arbitrariness from the standpoint of North Korean fishing boat.

On December 25, 2007, the article of the title ‘○○,' ‘subsidiary North Korea' was published in the Internet media called ‘Saeong,' ‘Saero,' and ‘Saero,' as follows (No. 24).

■ ○○○○당 내 평등파 최대 정파인 ‘■■’은 ‘당 혁신을 통한 제2 창당’을 당면 최대 사업으로 정했다. 현재의 ○○○○당으로서는 진보정당 운동을 이끌고 나갈 수 없으며 당원과 국민에게 외면당할 뿐이라는 현실 인식에 따른 것.

■‘■■’은 임시총회를 통해, 대선 및 당 운영에서의 패권주의 평가, 종북주의 등 반진보적 노선에 대한 전면적 청산 등을 관철시키기 위한 임시당대회 소집을 요구하기로 결정했다.

On December 27, 2007, the article of the title ‘○○○○ Inter-North Korea Road' was inserted in the article of the “cultural Day” as follows (No. 28).

In the ○○○○○○ Party suffering from the post-maring of the presidential election, the malone has been raised in the process of the division of the political party.The department of the equal strike(PD and the civil democracy) stipulates that the cause of the crisis of the party is "North Korea's route" and is not even a party to the division. However, the department of the autonomous strike(NL and the national defense) is against the decentralization of the country at the end of the decentralization.

■ 소외 12 전 대변인도 북핵사태나 ▣▣회 사건 등에서 당 지도부가 북한정권에 지나치게 관대하게 비친 것은 분명한 사실이라며, 종북주의라고 부를 만했다고 지적했다.

On December 28, 2007, the article of the title, ‘○○, Dozin Innovation?', ‘Seoul Newspaper', ‘Seoul Newspaper', was published in the following contents, etc. (B evidence 10).

C. The career debate between ○○○○○○ party is full-time. The “divate theory” and the “innocentative theory” of independent radio waves are in full-time and full-time.

In addition, the head of the non-party 13's non-party 13's non-party 13's non-party 13's non-party 1's non-party 13's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's

On December 29, 2007, Non-Party 14, “Sari-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-

C. Nonparty 14, a member of the ○○○○ Party, was the member of the ○○○ Party, and Nonparty 14, a member of the ○○○ Party, went through the formation of a new political party, claiming the formation of a new political party while putting the same in favor of a luminous group, private school group, etc.

A member of the ○○○○○○○○ Party’s political party’s independence or independence is a product of Korean subdivision reality. However, as long as he/she has the right, ○○○○ Party is not an inventive party, insofar as he/she has the right, the ○○○ Party is not an inventive party. They are not responsible, and discussions are not carried out, and only the North Korean subject who does not study and study.

The core of the crisis of the ○○○ Party before Nonparty 15 is that Kim Il-sung took the part of the party, and the formation of the 2nd political party was necessary and claimed by the ○○ Party Policy Chairperson.

■ 소외 15 전 의장은 ○○당은 원래 영국 ◆◆당을 모델로 창당된 당이고, 이 모델의 핵심은 실용적 좌파인데, ○○당이 국회에 진출한 이후 사회에 적응하지 못했지만 소멸하지 않은 김일성주의자들이 갈 데가 없으니까 당에 들어와 기생하면서 노선이 변질됐다며 이 같이 말했다.

○○○ on January 1, 2008, “Mama News,” the “Jama,” “Jama, pro-Northististism,” which was published as follows:

■ ○○○○당 내 평등파(PD)의 최대 그룹으로 약 400명의 열성회원이 있고, 보통 ‘■■’그룹으로 불린다. 이 ‘■■’ 그룹의 전 집행위원장인 소외 16 씨가 대선기간 중에 쓴 ‘★★★당을 창당하자’는 문건인 지난 12월 24일 ‘민중의 소리’에 공개되면서 큰 파장이 일었다.

In the case, the equality of the party is preparing for the formation of the new party, and the self-speak for the formation of the new party was criticized as the pro-speism. Nonparty 17 criticizes that the pro-speism based on the pro-speism of the NL in the telephone interview is the big cause for the self-speaking of the party, and it is possible to make best efforts to solve the pro-speakism, and even if there is no idea to improve it, it may not be inevitable to do so.

■ 친북을 비판하는 것은 북한을 배격해야 하는 말이고 그 범위가 넓다. 진보정당임에도 북한의 핵무장도 비판하지 않고 ▣▣회 사건 등도 비판하지 않는, 북한을 무조건 추종하는 태도를 종북주의라고 비판하고 있는 것이다.

○2008. 4경 제18대 국회의원 선거에서 ○○○○당 소속 후보자 5명(지역구 2명, 비례대표 3명)이 당선되었다가, 2011. 12.경 ○○○○당, ▼▼▼▼당, ★★★당 탈당파(◀◀◀◀◀연대)의 통합으로 ▶▶▶▶당이 창당되었다.

[2]

○제19대 국회의원 선거일이 2012. 4. 19.로 예정되었고, △△△△당과 ♤♤♤♤당은 2012. 3.경 위 선거에 출마할 후보자를 선발하기 위하여 다수의 지역구에서 야권후보 단일화를 시도하였다.

○서울 ♠♠을 지역구에서도 양당 사이에 야권후보 단일화가 이루어져 △△△△당의 원고 1이 야권후보로 선정되었으나, 원고 1의 선거캠프 측에서 단일화 과정의 여론조사를 조작하였다는 의혹이 불거지자 원고 1이 2012. 3. 23. 위 지역구 예비후보를 사퇴하였다. 그러면서 △△△△당이 추천한 전 ○○○○당 서울시당 위원장 소외 10이 후보자로 출마하여 제19대 국회의원에 당선되었다.

○한편으로 성남시 ♥♥구 지역구에서 야권단일화 후보로 출마하려던 △△△△당의 소외 18 후보가 과거 자신의 성추행 의혹에 관한 언론보도가 나오자 2012. 3. 22. 예비후보를 사퇴하기도 하였다.

On March 14, 2012, from around the same month to the 18th day of the same month, the △△△△△△△ Party held online and on-site voting for the selection of proportional representative candidates. As a result, the proportional representative candidates of the △△△△△ Party, published on March 21, 2012, were published on Nonparty 1, 19, 2, 9, 3, 4, 20, 20, 5, 21, 22, 7, 23, 9, 24, 10, and 25, respectively.

○그런데 비례대표 후보자 선정과정에서 선거인명부 조작이 있었다는 의혹이 제기되었고, 4번 소외 20 후보에 관해서는 ♣♣♣♣♣노동조합 위원장을 역임할 당시 전국민주노동조합총연맹 소속원이 ♣♣♣♣♣노동조합 여직원을 성폭행한 사건의 후속 처리를 제대로 하지 못하여 후보자의 자질이 없다는 주장이 제기되기도 하였다.

[3]

On March 21, 2012, the article in the “Sable Space” was published in the “Sable Spacebook” as of March 21, 2012:

In a case where the plaintiff 1 himself/herself causes water, it is not possible to recognize and resign. The reason is that if the plaintiff 1 is a common political party, such as an appearance and resignation, his/her intention is on his/her head in making a decision that would act as the top priority factor, the decision of a group that works more priority than his/her own will is on his/her head.

In addition, even the young politician, who is Plaintiff 1, is the representative of △△△△△ Party, following the ○○ Party.

○2012. 3. 24. ‘동아일보’에 〈♤♤당, 종북세력의 집권전략에 ‘들러리’ 설 건가〉라는 제목의 사설이 아래와 같은 내용 등으로 게재되었다(을나 제3호증).

■ 원고 1 대표의 사퇴를 끌까지 막은 배후는 옛 ○○당 당권파인 ▽▽▽▽연합으로 알려져 있다. ★★★당 탈당파와 ▼▼▼▼당까지 합친 △△△△당의 소(소)통합을 주도한 이들은 주체사상파 계열이다. 옛 ○○당 출신인 소외 3 씨는 원고 1 대표 대신 출마한 소외 10 씨가 ▽▽▽▽연합의 몸통이라고 말한다.

■ △△△△당을 만든 종북좌파 세력은 2단계 정권교체론을 주장한다. 현실적으로 세력이 미미한 1단계에선 ♤♤당과 손잡고 2012년 대선에서 승리하는 것이다. 집권 후 야권 공동정부를 운영하면서 좌파적 분위기를 확산해 2017년 대선에서 △△△△당 단독으로 집권하는 것이 2단계 정권교체라는 설명이다.

On March 24, 2012, the article, “Plaintiff 1’s “” was inserted in Nonparty 3 as Defendant 1’s “Defendant 1’s Anti-Gambling> (A’s evidence 6-2, and Defendant 7’s article written and inserted by Defendant 7).

As the representative of Plaintiff 1 raised a claim that the organization called the pro-North Korean War, a pro-North Korean War, was decided on the withdrawal of Plaintiff 1’s representative in the post-public opinion poll manipulation, the representative of Plaintiff 1 resigned the 23-day candidate.

In the case of Nonparty 3’s non-party 1’s non-party 3’s non-party 1’s representative is not the same as the ▽▽▽▽▽△, but it is not known that the female had the influence on that influence, and that it was possible to obtain a public seal today as he had been engaged in a different way from that of reporting.

In addition, Defendant 1’s representative was aware of the fact that Plaintiff 1’s representative is a pro rata of the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△ and that Plaintiff 1’s husband 2-C is a member of the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△ and a representative theoretical offer). Defendant 1’s representative was a person who denied the 6/25 South-North aggression at his/her own discretion.

On March 27, 2012, the article of “○○○○○○○○ Party △△△△△ is published as follows (No. 13 evidence, No. 26).

■ △△△△당 당권파로 알려진 ▽▽▽▽연합이 사실은 ♧♧당에 뿌리를 둔 세력일 것이라는 주장이 제기됐다. ▽▽▽▽연합 출신으로 지목받고 있는 △△△△당 비례대표 2번 소외 9 후보는 구 ♧♧당 하부조직인 경기남부위원장 출신이라는 것.

■ 최근 〈◐◐◐ ◐◐〉을 펴낸 소외 26 ∈∈∈∈∈ ∈∈∈∈ 대표는, ▽▽▽▽는 원래 90년대 한총련에서 경기 동부지역 학생운동을 지칭할 때 쓰던 말로 이후 전국연합 활동을 진행하면서 성남 등 주변 지역의 재야운동까지를 포괄해서 사용하게 됐다고 말했다.

■ 소외 26 대표는 ▽▽▽▽연합은 현재 뚜렷한 실체가 없는 용어이고, 오히려 현재의 △△△△당 당권파들의 실체를 가려버리는 역할을 할 수 있다면서 이들을 구 ♧♧당 관련 세력으로 부르는 게 정확하다고 했다.

On April 2, 2012, ○○○ Shipbuilding published an article of title 10 (B) â………§ 10-7).

■ 현재 진보당은 과거 ○○당을 주축으로 ▼▼▼▼당의 소외 27, 소외 28 등 친노계열, 그리고 ★★★당 탈당파 출신들인 소외 29, 소외 1, 소외 13 전 의원 등이 합세해 2011년 12월에 결성되었다. ○○당계를 대표해 원고 1 의원이 공동대표를, 역시 ○○당 출신인 소외 30 씨가 사무총장을 맡고 있고, 같은 당 출신인 소외 31 씨가 공동정책위원장을 맡고 있다.

In light of the fact that the representatives, the Secretary-General, and the policy chairperson of a political party who can serve as key party staff members, and the head of the Gu ○○○ party are the party members of the Gu ○○ party, they are influences, but they are weak grounds to regard them as the ▽▽▽▽▽△△. In some of them, although fluoring Plaintiff 1’s representative, or Plaintiff 1’s representative has been engaged in his activities in Seoul in 200 when he was an attorney-at-law in 200, and Nonparty 30 or Nonparty 31’s policy chairperson, respectively, is a person working in Gwangju Metropolitan City and Busan Metropolitan City.

On April 18, 2012, “○○○○○ Central News” was published as follows (No. 12 evidence, No. 4-2).

A joint representative of the △△△△△ Party is the party that is referred to as the △△△○○ Joint Representative, as it is the party that has the power within the △△△△△ Party, and thus, he should be held responsible to the extent that he has the power.

In a case involving North Korea, Nonparty 1’s representative also expressed that there was a biased perception of the ▽▽▽▽▽△ in a case involving North Korea. Nonparty 1’s representative and the key force, including Plaintiff 1’s representative, are asking questions as to whether it is recognized as a pro-North Korea force. However, Nonparty 1’s representative and Nonparty 1’s representative are the force to conjecte the pro-North Korea and North Korea labor party, which is not consistent with the facts.

○2012. 4. 18. ‘동아일보’에 〈없어진 줄 알았던 ♧♧당, ○○당 이어 △△당까지 장악〉이라는 제목의 기사가 아래와 같은 내용 등으로 게재되었다(을다 제10호증의5).

■ ▽▽▽▽연합은 껍데기입니다. 보수우파 측에서 껍데기를 몸통이라고 비판하니 저들도 웃는 것입니다. 몸통은 김일성 주체사상을 신봉하고 대한민국 체제를 전복하려 했던 ♧♧당 잔존 세력입니다.(소외 32 남북청년행동 사무총장, 과거 ♧♧당 관련 활동)

■ △△당의 당권을 차지한 세력은 ▽▽▽▽연합이 아닌 ♧♧당 잔존세력이라는 주장이 힘을 얻고 있다. ♧♧당은 북한에서 직접 지령을 받는 종북 지하당으로 1989년 실체가 드러나 수뇌부가 체포되면서 와해됐다. 하지만 체포되지 않은 사람들이 조직을 재건해 점조직 형태로 유지해 왔으며, 이 세력들이 과거 ○○○○당을 거쳐 현재 △△당의 당권을 접수했다는 얘기다.

■ ▽▽▽▽연합은 1991년 결성한 전국연합의 하위 지역 조직, 전국연합은 전노협 등 27개 단체가 모여 만든 좌파 성향의 연합체였다. 2006년 한국진보연대가 출범하면서 활동을 멈췄고, 2008년 공식 해산됐다. ▽▽▽▽연합도 이때 함께 사라졌다. 따라서 현재 △△당 당권을 차지한 계파가 ▽▽▽▽연합이라는 주장은 맞지 않는다는 것. 실체가 없었던 ▽▽▽▽연합 대신 점조직으로 운영한 ♧♧당 잔존 세력이 핵심이라는 얘기가 설득력을 얻고 있다.

On April 21, 2012, “New Daily”: “NL-PD classification of △△△△ Party (former ○○○ Party)” was published as follows: (a) the article of the title “Korea-U.S. Party (former ○○ Party); and (b) the article of the title “Korea-U.S. Party (former ○○ Party)” was published as follows

In the ○○○ party, there is no so-called ‘NL' as well as ‘NL'. If the NL is accurately expressed, the NL is an injection (NL), a pro-North Korea (pro-North Korea), a pro-North Korea (pro-North Korea), and a pro-North Korea (pro-North Korea). However, PD is only an pro-North Korea (pro-North Korea).

In addition, it is necessary to see the term "pro-North Koreaism" criticized by PD waves. The question is not pro-North Korea, anti-states, anti-states, and anti-Constitutions, but merely the subject of North Korea is damaged. The violation of the National Security Act is fine, but it is not a self-esteem and self-harm.

On April 25, 2012, the article of “Nber News” was inserted as follows:

(1) The organization of the ▽▽▽▽xv has been officially dissolved with the dissolution of the National Assembly in 2008, as a regional organization of a democratic national unification union. The continuing to be dissolved in the past is due to the major personnel who worked in the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽ have played an important role in determining policies through the connection in the process of blocking the inventive party, labor campaign, and inventive-out campaign. In fact, the organization is working as a political party.

A person who had discussed about a joint strike with the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽ have been pointed out that there was a political organization and political organization, such as a democratic labor union or an inventive party, by forming a punishment in the past, even though he did not present a political position officially before the public, it seems that there was no substance, but did not have any substance.

On May 6, 2012, the article, “Plaintiff 1, who is not a bad face,” “Plaintiff 1, who is a very bad face,” was published in the following contents, etc. (A evidence 6).

■ △△△△당 비례대표 경선 후폭풍으로 촉발된 당권파(▽▽▽▽연합)와 비당권파 간 갈등이 확산되는 가운데 소외 3 ▨▨대 교수는 원고 1 공동대표 등 당권파를 강하게 비난했다.

■ 소외 3는 대중에게 가장 충격적인 것은 원고 1의 변신일 것이라며 저는 원고 1이 대충 중재역 비슷한 걸 하는 시늉이라도 할 줄 알았거든요. 그런데 모두 발언하는데 완전 하드코어더군요. 마치 영화 링을 보는 듯 소름이 끼쳤습니다라고 맹비난했다.

○○ on May 14, 2012, “YTN News” broadcasted the contents of interview with Nonparty 3 professors of the cultural faculty of the YTN University as follows (No. 15 evidence).

■ 원고 1 씨 이야기를 해서 그런데 굉장히 가슴이 아프거든요, 저도 좋아했던 분이고 ♠♠을 사태 터졌을 때까지도 제가 끝까지 옹호하려고 했거든요. 그 분이 NL이라고 하는 세력이 미래가 그 분처럼 해야 한다 그런 표상의 상징이었거든요. 지난 4년간 잘 해오셨어요, 실제로 문제는 이 분이 그 동안 국민을 대변해왔는데 이번에 정파를 대변한 것 아닙니까?

In this regard, the portion of the investigation agency, which was the part of the progress, was revealed as a scenario of the fact-finding, called the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△. The low is too close, and why is why this portion is widely unfolded, and is not the image changed. When considering why is why it would be so, the power force in the party-spath has been forced to the end. The same is the same.

(d) North Korea, pro-North Korea, and the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽;

1) The term "North Korean War" is a wave in the middle of the 1980s where the power has been expanded, and it was difficult to commemorate the "NL theory of the Revolution of the Korean Anti-National Democratic Democratic Revolution", which is the route of North Korean Revolution, with the subject ideology of North Korea Kim Il-sung as the guiding ideology and action guidelines.

In Korea where the two Koreas stand on behalf of the South and North Korea and the National Security Act is enforced, if a specific person is classified as a pro-North Korea, he shall be deemed to be the anti-social force, and since his social reputation and reputation are considerably damaged, such honor shall be deemed to be damaged (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da14613, Dec. 24, 2002).

2) According to the above, from March 21, 2012 to February 24, 2012, Defendant 1 used the term “pro-North Korea” from before posting a letter related to the Plaintiffs on his Twitter account, and such term has the meanings of “pro-North Korea”, “pro-North Korea”, “pro-North Korea, which is superior to the diplomatic policy of the Cho Jong Labor Party,” “the position of de-North Korea without any condition”, and “damage to the identity and subject of damage to North Korea”. In addition, there was significance of criticism of the Ma○○○○○ Party or △△△△△△△△ Party with the aforementioned tendency or the personnel belonging thereto.

On the other hand, the term "North Korea" was also used, and it was meaningful to distinguish the term from the North Korea, where the term "North Korea is prone or North Korea," and "the tendency to support the position of North Korea."

As long as North Korea still has not shown clear signs that it renounced completely the course of hostile unification that it intends to unify the system of free democracy with the Republic of Korea, and there is no obvious democratic change in its inside, North Korea also has the character of anti-government organization that takes the responsibility for the transition of our free democracy system by taking advantage of the dialogue and cooperation for peaceful unification at the same time (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3212, Aug. 30, 2004). Meanwhile, since the unification oriented by the Constitution is peaceful unification, it cannot be consistent to avoid any contact and dialogue in the hostile relationship as it is a peaceful unification. For unification based on the free democratic basic order, North Korea is inevitable to recognize North Korea as a political entity, and North Korea can also be declared to the extent that it does not harm the fundamental order of democracy in the process of contact, dialogue and compromise with North Korea (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3212, Aug. 30, 2004).

Therefore, all acts accompanying North Korea do not immediately pose a risk of undermining the existence and security of the State or undermining the free and democratic fundamental order (see the decision of the Constitutional Court of Korea), but it constitutes a violation of the National Security Act by actively and aggressively inducing the promotion of the North Korean public organization, such as setting the principal idea of North Korea as an instructor, denying a free democracy system by asserting the realization of the public democracy, and promoting the routes of independence, democracy, and unification, which are the three tasks of North Korea's threat against the North Korean public peace group (see the decision of the Constitutional Court of Korea above).

At present, in the indictment of violation of the National Security Act or the crime of espionage, the expressions such as “the personnel and meetings of the North Korean tendency”, “distribution of documents of the North Korean tendency”, “pro-North Korean activities”, “pro-North Korean consciousness learning”, and “pro-North Korean site” are used as facts charged or facts constituting a crime. In addition, it is common to criticize a specific person’s attitude or tendency against North Korea more strongly.

According to the above circumstances, the term "pro-North Korea" refers to the opinion that is alleged to be pro-friendly with North Korea, while the term "pro-North Korea" has an irregular and fatal meaning that it can be subject to criminal punishment by engaging in the act of denying the identity and constitutional basic order of the Republic of Korea, since the criticism was made to the effect that the equality of ○○○○○○○ Party in the past is not independent and independent with respect to North Korea in relation to the party's policy or ideological direction.

If so, in the reality of South and North Korea where the National Security Act is enforced, if a specific person is classified as North Korea from a pro-North Korea on an unfortunate basis, he/she shall be a person who committed the crime, and his/her social reputation and reputation shall be considerably damaged by anti-social force, and thus his/her reputation shall be deemed to be damaged.

3) On April 16, 2007, before Defendant 1 up to March 21, 2012, up to March 24, 2012, he was sentenced to the judgment on the case of violation of the National Security Act with respect to Nonparty 8, etc. on April 16, 2007, which was prior to posting a letter related to the Plaintiffs in his Twitter account, it was determined that Defendant 1 had the organization of “▽▽▽▽▽△” (No. 8).

또한 앞서 본 바에 의하면, 피고 1이 자신의 트위터 계정에 원고들에 관련된 글을 게시하였을 당시를 전후한 2012. 3.과 같은 해 4.경 “옛 ○○당 당권파인 ▽▽▽▽연합”, “△△△△당을 만든 종북좌파 세력”, “종북주사파인 ▽▽▽▽연합”, “▽▽▽▽연합은 ♧♧당에 뿌리를 둔 세력”, “김일성 주체사상을 신봉하고 대한민국 체재를 전복하려 했던 ♧♧당”, “▽▽▽▽연합으로 지칭되는 당권파”라는 등의 보도가 있었다.

In full view of such circumstances and Defendant 1’s aforementioned Twitter bulletin, Defendant 1’s use of pro-North Korea and pro-North Korea pro-North Korea, and the context, preparation, and dissemination of the aforementioned Twitter bulletin, etc., comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) deeming that a specific person is affiliated with the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽”) recognized as a pro-North Korea force or pro-North Korea force; (b) he/she ought to be subject to criminal punishment by committing an act denying the identity and constitutional fundamental order of the Republic of Korea with the unpro-North Korean regime; and (c) thus, he/she is an anti-social force. Therefore, such act ought to be deemed

E. Expression of political ideology

1) In a case where the expression in question concerns the political ideology of a public figure, if the political ideology of a public figure is larger, and the political ideology of a public figure is greater, and the political ideology of a public figure affects the future of the State, and thus, the political ideology of a public figure should be thoroughly disclosed and verified, as long as there is any doubt or doubt thereon, and as long as it is probable, public debate should be permitted. Prior to an accurate argument or public judgment, it should not be obstructed in the name of the honorary protection of the public figure, and it should be democratic to ensure that the raise of suspicions against it should not be obstructed in the name of the honorary protection of the public figure. The political ideology of a person or organization is not only impossible but also impossible to prove exactly what ideology it has in light of the nature of a political ideology, and it should be 20 times to present the political ideology of a public figure or public figure so that it can be objectively proven that there is a considerable burden on the public figure or public figure of the press, and it should be able to present more specific and more concrete circumstances to present and present the political ideology of the public figure or public figure.

2) However, even if the filing of a matter concerning the public concern of a public figure should be widely permitted, the method of expression should not be permitted without supporting a specific circumstance, and even if based on a specific circumstance, the person’s character should be respected. Even if there is any matter subject to criticism, the method of expression should be selected on the basis of respecting the other party’s character, and even if there is no matter subject to criticism, it is not permissible to place insult by an ambiguous expression (see the above Supreme Court Decision).

In addition, it cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that an expressive act expressed critical opinion against another person. However, if the form and content of an expressive act constitutes an insulting and definite personal attack or an act of publishing distorted facts going beyond a certain degree of exaggeration as to another’s personal affairs, thereby infringing on one’s personal right, such act may constitute a separate type of tort from defamation (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65494, Apr. 9, 2009).

3) A mere assertion that a certain expression is of value or harmful cannot justify the regulation of the expression. The primary function of correcting the harm and danger of the expression lies in the competition mechanism of ideas existing inside civil society. However, even according to the various opinions and the competition mechanism of ideas and ideas conflicting between each era and society, there are too serious expressions of harm and danger that may not be resolved from the beginning or that they can be resolved with the view of other ideas and expressions.

Multilateral and tolerance democratic society is not only a friendly or not aggressive expression, but also a aggressive and partial citizen’s shock or a view to information or ideas that interfere with the formation of a reasonable will. However, without specific grounds or clear evidence, the expression aimed at excluding, discriminating against, obscing, or inspiring the enemy may not be permitted on the ground of diversified, tolerance, or tolerance.

As seen earlier, it has an irregular and fatal meaning that North Korea may be subject to criminal punishment by committing an act that denies the identity and basic constitutional order of the Republic of Korea. In full view of these circumstances and the harm and tolerance of expression as seen earlier, even if the political ideology of a specific person is based on the suspicion that the specific person is pro-North Korea or pro-North Korea, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the subjective evaluation is true or true, the burden of proof should be mitigated by presenting specific circumstances that may cause such suspicion or subjective evaluation, rather than in the case of general political ideology.

(f) Liability for damages;

1) According to the above, in the article posted on his Twitter account, Defendant 1 and Plaintiff 2 are themselves related to the △△○○○ and Plaintiff 2, and the △△○○○○○ is a pro-North Korea and North Korea-North Korea-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-Korean-North Korean-Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-Korean-North Korean-Korean-North Korean-Korean-North Korean-Korean-North Korean-Korean-Korean-North Korean-Korean-Korean-North Korean-Korean-North Korean-North Korean-Korean-North Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Japan.

2) 그런데 원고 1은 1987년에 ◑◑대학교에 입학하고 1996년에 사법시험에 합격하여 사법연수원에서 원고 2를 만나 결혼한 것으로 알려져 있다. 또한 앞서 본 바에 의하면, △▽▽▽▽연합은 1991년 결성한 전국연합의 하위 지역조직이고, 전국연합은 2006년 한국진보연대가 출범하면서 활동을 멈추고 2008년 공식 해산되었으며, ▽▽▽▽연합도 이때 함께 사라졌다는 내용의 기사가 2012. 4.경 게재되기도 하였고(을다 제10호증의5), △△△△△당의 핵심 당직이라고 할 수 있는 대표와 사무총장, 정책위원장을 구 ○○당 출신들이 장악하고 있다는 면에서 이들이 당권파인 것은 맞지만 이들을 ▽▽▽▽연합으로 볼 근거는 취약하다, 일부에서 원고 1 대표를 얼굴마담으로 폄하하지만 어쨌든 원고 1 대표는 2000년 변호사가 된 이후 줄곧 서울에서 활동해 왔고, 소외 30, 사무총장이나 소외 31 정책위원장은 각자 광주광역시와 부산광역시에서 활동한 인물로 ▽▽▽▽연합과는 인연이 없다는 의견을 소개하는 기사가 2012. 4.경 게재되기도 하였다(을다 제10호증의7).

한편으로 피고 1은 위 트위터 게시글에서, △『솔직히 ▽▽▽▽연합은 공개조직도 아니므로 추측밖에 못하죠』라고 하고, △『▽▽▽▽연합에 대해서는 추정 얼마든지 해도 됩니다』라고 하였다.

Considering that the time when Plaintiff 1’s admission, marriage and activity area, the time when the article on such organization was published on April 2012, when the article on the organization time was published, the time when Defendant 1 posted written comments on the Plaintiffs on the Twitter account, which was near March 2012, when Defendant 1 posted on the Twitter account, the time when Defendant 1 posted such written materials on the Plaintiffs, Defendant 1’s entrance time, marriage and activity area, and Plaintiff 2 planned Plaintiff 1 to work for Plaintiff 1 in the aforesaid Twitter publication, it cannot be deemed that there was sufficient presentation of specific circumstances that make it possible for Plaintiff 1 to raise suspicion or conduct a subjective assessment.

In addition, the content of the above expression is not equal to that of the plaintiffs who are married with other expressions, and it is increased that plaintiff 2, who is a couple, has operated and used the plaintiff 1 from the time when the intellectual ability is insufficient, and it is an expression that is distorted differently from the truth, thereby infringing on character.

3) According to the foregoing, upon being sentenced to the judgment on the case against the violation of the National Security Act against Nonparty 8, etc. on April 16, 2007, it was determined that there was an organization of the “▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽”. In the course of the investigation or trial, there is no evidence from which Plaintiff 1 was aware that the said investigation or trial belongs to the relevant ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽”. In addition, Nonparty 9, etc., who was suspected of being in a position within the said ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽”) was indicted as a conspiracy of insurrection, but in the course of the investigation

또한 앞서 본 바에 의하면, △원고 1을 ▽▽▽▽연합과 동일시하지 마라, 그녀가 그 세역의 영향 아래 있을지는 모르나, 이제까지 그 세력이 보여줬던 것과는 다른 행보를 해왔기에 오늘날의 대중적 인기를 얻을 수 있었다는 의견을 소개하는 기사가 2012. 3.경 게재되기도 하였고(갑 제6호증의2), △△△△△당 당권파로 알려진 ▽▽▽▽연합이 사실은 ♧♧당에 뿌리를 둔 세력일 것이라는 주장이 제기되었다, ▽▽▽▽연합은 뚜렷한 실체가 없는 용어이고, 오히려 현재의 △△△△당 당권파들의 실체를 가려버려는 역할을 할 수 있다면서 이들을 구 ♧♧당 관련 세력으로 부르는 것이 정확하다는 의견을 소개하는 기사가 2012. 3.경 게재되기도 하였으며(을가 제13호증, 을가 제26호증), △△△△△당의 당권을 차지한 세력은 ▽▽▽▽연합이 아닌 ♧♧당 잔존 세력이라는 주장이 힘을 얻고 있다, ♧♧당은 북한에서 직접 지령을 받은 종북 지하당으로 1989년 실체가 드러나 수뇌부가 체포되면서 와해됐다, 하지만 체포되지 않은 사람들이 조직을 재건해 점조직 형태로 유지해 왔으며, 이 세력들이 과거 ○○○○당을 거쳐 △△△△당의 당권을 접수했다는 의견을 소개하는 기사가 게재되기도 하였다(을다 제10호증의 5). 그런데 원고 1이나 원고 2가 이러한 ♧♧당 또는 그 잔존 세력과 연결되어 목적 수행의 활동을 함께 한다는 점을 확인할 수 있는 자료는 나타나지 않는다.

In light of the above circumstances, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1’s presentation of specific circumstances that may cause suspicions or subjective evaluations is sufficient in regard to the fact that the Plaintiffs were the pro-North Korea and North Korea-North Korea-North Korea-North Korea organizations themselves.

4) According to the evidence No. 35, around December 2004, Plaintiff 2 published a thesis, which is the Domination of force by North Korea, which is the premise of the National Security Act: “The so-called Domination of force by North Korea,” which is the premise of the National Security Act; the main contents of the thesis are as follows: “The National Security Act needs to be established in North Korea taking the Domination of force and hostile unification; it is difficult to recognize that North Korea is taking the Domination of armed forces and hostile unification; therefore, it is difficult to recognize that North Korea is taking the Domination of force by North Korea.” Thus, it is not denied that North Korea’s 6/25 war had occurred

As such, Defendant 1’s article written by Plaintiff 2 in the aforesaid Twitter bulletin denies the South-North Korean War, and this is a position of the pro-North Korea/North Korea/North Korean Union, and Plaintiff 2 is deemed as a member of the pro-North Korea/North Korean Union, and there is sufficient specific circumstance to raise doubt or make a subjective evaluation.

5) Defendant 1 asserts that the foregoing Twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter on a social network, which is a private space, and is not an expression published. However, in light of the contents of the above Twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter t

On the other hand, the Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant 1 committed sexually discriminative insults by Defendant 1 on the grounds that the Plaintiff 1 did not have the right to Maccot, Aro-Lone, the role of entry, face voice, and judgment. However, it is difficult to recognize that Plaintiff 1 constituted tort in light of the fact that the Plaintiff 1 is a public figure.

G. Sub-determination

Thus, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay consolation money due to a tort to the plaintiffs, and Defendant 1’s twitter’s twitter’s twitter’s twitter’s twitter’s twitter’s twitter’s twitter’s twitter’s twitter’s twitter’s 24th day from March 21, 2012 to 24th day of the same month, and one of them constitutes a single tort, including all the above facts.

3. Claim against the defendant 2

(a) Name of the defendant 2;

피고 2는 ☆☆☆당 중앙선대위 대변인으로서 2012. 3. 25. ☆☆☆당 인터넷 홈페이지에 〈실체 드러난 △△△△당의 ‘▽▽▽▽연합’, ‘민주’, ‘진보’의 가면을 쓰고 총선 나선다. ♤♤♤♤당도 눈치 보며 끌려다니는 현실, 현명한 국민은 ‘두 당 야합’의 본색을 안다〉는 제목으로 [별지 10]과 같이 원고들에 관련된 내용의 성명을 작성·게시하였다.

피고 2는 위 성명에서, 『원고 1 △△△△당 공동대표가 출마하려 했다가 사퇴한 서울 ♠♠을 지역구는 원고 1 대표의 배후인 ▽▽▽▽연합 몫으로 그대로 남게 됐다』 , 『♤♤♤♤당은 ▽▽▽▽연합의 소외 10 전 ○○당 서울시당 위원장을 ♠♠을 후보로 인정했다. 이에 대해 ○○당 출신인 소외 3 ▨▨대 교수는 “(▽▽▽▽연합) 얼굴(원고 1) 대신 아예 몸통(소외 10)가 나서는 격”이라고 평했다.』 , 『‘원고 1 대표는 ▽▽▽▽연합에 대해 모른다고 말했지만, 그의 남편인 원고 2도 이 조직에 속해 있다는 게 정설이고』 , 『국민은 ▽▽▽▽연합의 실체에 대해 조금은 알게 됐다. ○○당에서 패권을 잡기 위해 수단·방법을 가리지 않았던 세력, 조직원이라면 성폭력도 눈감아 주는 세력, 김일성 초상화를 걸어놓고 묵념하는 세력』 , 『▽▽▽▽연합은 ♤♤♤♤당을 이용해 국회를 움켜쥐고, 12월 대선에서 소위 연합정권을 출범시킨 다음 5년 뒤에 그들만의 정권을 세우려 한다는 사실을 이젠 국민을 알게 됐다.』라고 하였다.

B. The plaintiffs' assertion

Defendant 2 expressed that the Plaintiffs are a member of the △△△△ Council, and most candidates for the △△△△△△△△ Party are the relevant staff members, and that the said organization should establish their political rights. Defendant 2 sold the entire party members to the person who was under operation without any consideration. Accordingly, Defendant 2 is obligated to pay consolation money for tort to the Plaintiffs.

C. Determination

1) In light of the doubt that the political ideology of a specific person is pro-North Korea or pro-North Korea, or that there is considerable reason to believe that the subjective evaluation conforms to the truth or is true, even if the burden of proof is mitigated by the presentation of specific circumstances that make it possible to raise such doubt or make a subjective evaluation, it is more careful and strict than in the case of general political ideology.

On the other hand, the freedom of expression is important, but it is extended in proportion to the wide range of the freedom of expression of political parties elected to provide a solution through discussions on public concerns.

Defendant 2’s above name constitutes a political comment as a representative of a political party. In a democratic political system, the freedom of political party activities is too important and not neglected to guarantee the guarantee thereof. Since a political assertion of a political party can be accepted to obtain support from the people, a certain degree of investigative exaggeration speech can be allowed. Thus, in determining illegality of a political comment by a representative of a political party, such special characteristics should also be considered (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64384, Jul. 8, 2003).

2) According to the aforementioned reasoning, Defendant 2 was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff 1 was a member of the △△△△○○○○ in the above name, but the fact that Plaintiff 2, the husband of the Plaintiff, was affiliated with the △△△△△△△△△△△△△ Group, was not deemed to be a member of the ▽△△△△△△△ Group while taking a form that contradicts Plaintiff 1’s assertion, and did not directly indicate that Plaintiff 2 was a pro-North Korea or pro-North Korea employee.

또한 앞서 든 증거들에 의하면, △▽▽▽▽연합은 1990년대에 활동하던 재야민주 단체인 ‘민주주의 민족통일 전국연합’의 지역지부로 존재한 적이 있던 단체이고, 피고 2가 의미한 ▽▽▽▽연합은 조직을 갖춘 현존하는 단체를 의미하는 것이 아니라 ▽▽▽▽연합 출신 인물을 구심점으로 하고 정치적 이념을 같이하는 정파 또는 계파를 의미하는 것으로 보이고, △▣▣회 사건에서 소외 8 등은 “○○○○당 내에 ▽▽▽▽연합 출신 활동가들이 존재하고, 소외 33, 소외 34, 소외 35 등이 위 ▽▽▽▽연합에 속한다”는 내용의 보고서를 작성한 사실이 인정되며, △2008. 1. 당시 ○○○○당 중앙연수원 원장을 맡고 있던 소외 17이 2008. 1. 1. “○○○○당 내 자주파(NL)의 종북주의에 근거한 패권주의가 당을 망쳐온 제일 큰 원인”이라고 발언한 사실이 인정되고, △소외 3(당시 ○○○○당 당원이자 ▨▨대학교 교수)은 2008. 2. 4.경 “○○○○당 내에 주사파 또는 종북주의자들이 실존하고 온갖 편법으로 ○○○○당을 장악해 들어오고 있다”는 내용의 기고문을 인터넷신문 ‘프레시안’에 게재한 사실이 인정되고, △과거 ○○○○당의 소속이었고 2012. 3.경에는 △△△△당의 공동대표였던 소외 1 및 2012. 5. 당시 △△△△당 새로나기 특별위원회 위원장 소외 2도 △△△△당 내에 “▽▽▽▽연합으로 지칭되는 당권파가 존재한다”는 취지로 주장하였던 사실이 인정된다.

3) In full view of the above circumstances, the above name announced by Defendant 2 is a political comment as a representative of a political party, and it is the content that Plaintiff 1 was affected by the political party or the fact that Plaintiff 1 was not significantly involved in the process of selecting candidates for the election of the 19th National Assembly members, and it is recognized that such doubt was reasonable, and that Defendant 1 was directly expressed as a pro-North Korea or pro-North Korea with respect to the plaintiffs in Twitter bulletin. Thus, the illegality of the above name of Defendant 2 cannot be recognized.

4) As to this, the plaintiffs alleged that the claims of the non-party 1 and non-party 2, etc. were made after the above name was announced by the defendant 2. However, even if the illegality is determined at the time of expression, since it can be judged at the time of expression by referring to the facts revealed before and after the expression, evidence collected after the expression can also be used as evidence for such determination (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da29928, Aug. 20, 1996; 2005Da58823, Jan. 24, 2008; 2008Da60971, Jan. 13, 201). The plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that defendant 2 is obligated to pay consolation money for tort to the plaintiffs on the ground of the above name is without merit.

4. Claim against Defendant 3, Defendant 4 and Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd.

A. Defendant 3 and Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd.

1) On March 26, 2012, Defendant 3, as a reporter of Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd. operating online newspaper “New Daily”, drafted and inserted an article related to the plaintiffs, as shown in attached Form 11, in the name of Nonparty 4, if the Plaintiff 1 earth and sand expansion in the above online newspaper New Daily, the non-party 4 should work in the same calendar.

The article written by Defendant 3 cited and reported the article posted on Defendant 1’s Twitter. The contents cited and reported as above are equally the same as “Plaintiff 1-Plaintiff 2 couple and Nonparty 4-Sai, and the husband’s relationship between the husband and the non-party 5 couple. The husband’s head and the non-party 4-Sai. In addition, the husband’s head and the non-party 4 act as the denial of the right.” “The proportional representative candidate for the non-party 4 △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ is a planned product to the representative of Plaintiff 1 created by the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△○, a party representative for the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, a party to this planning”, and “The Plaintiff 1 was marked in the ▽△△

2) As seen in the above claim against Defendant 1, it cannot be deemed sufficient to present specific circumstances that make it possible to raise suspicion or make a subjective evaluation, and the content of the above expression is not equal to the plaintiffs who are the couple, and as such, raising the impression that Plaintiff 2 operated and used Plaintiff 1 from the time when Plaintiff 2 falls short of the intellectual ability, it is deemed that it infringes on the personality by distorted the truth.

3) Defendant 3 asserted that Defendant 1’s comments are merely cited by Defendant 1, an Internet journalist, but the responsibility of defamation is not denied only by citing another person’s words, and Defendant 3 has a duty of care to investigate whether it is true when reporting another person’s words as a reporter, especially another person’s words as a reporter, and there is no evidence to prove that Defendant 3 fulfilled such duty of care.

4) Therefore, Defendant 3 and Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd are jointly and severally liable to pay consolation money to the Plaintiffs by tort. In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, it is recognized that the consolation money amount is reasonable to determine as KRW 5 million.

B. Defendant 4 and Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd.

1) On March 27, 2012, Defendant 4, as the reporter of Defendant New Daily, drafted and inserted an article related to the plaintiffs, as shown in attached Form 12, as the title (attached Form 12) of the said online newspaper New Daily Act:

피고 4는 위 기사에서, 『원고 1 부부는 대한민국에서 사법고시에 합격하여 종북좌파로 살려고 공부를 했는가』, 『부부가 다 사법고시에 합격하여 개천에서 용이 나서 승천을 못하고 북괴 김정일 앞으로 떨어져서 이무기가 되었나 보다』, 『‘원고 1 △△당 대표의 ♠♠을 여론조사 조작 사건으로 낙마를 하면서 그의 부군 원고 2가 소속되어 있는 ▽▽▽▽연합이라는 종북좌파 주사파 조직이 도마에 오르고 있다』 , 『원고 1 부군인 원고 2 변호사는 여러 부분에서 종북좌파로 활동하고 있다. 이번에 ▽▽▽▽연합이라는 주사파들이 모여서 만든 조직에서도 아마 지도자급이라는 설이 있다』 , 『▽▽▽▽연합은 순 새빨간 세력들이 모여 만든 조직으로 실질적으로 △△당의 오너 역할을 하는 곳이라는 것이 대체적인 인식이다』, 『△△당의 원고 1 대표의 남편인 원고 2는 대한민국에서 북괴가 주장하는 발언들을 앵무새처럼 그대로 따라하는 종북좌파 중에 종북좌파의 사상을 가진 자이다』 , 『원고 2가 ∋∋에서 올린 글들을 보면 정말 북괴 대변인 노릇을 한 것이 그대로 드러나고 있다』, 『간첩들을 옹호하면서 정부를 비판하는 원고 2는 대한민국 국민이라고 볼 수 없고, 간첩이 아닌지 모르겠다』, 『원고 1이 당 대표로 있는 △△당이나 원고 1 남편 원고 2는 색이 빨간 종북좌파들이다.』, 『이런 자들이 대한민국 법을 다루어서 먹고 사는 직업을 가졌다는 것이 바로 대한민국 법을 무력화시키려는 북괴의 전략일 것이다』, 『이들이 바로 대한민국 국론을 분열시키고 전복시키려는 종북좌파들이기 때문이다』라고 하였다.

2) In full view of the objective contents of the language and text, the language and text, the relationship between the former and the former sentences, and the context, etc., the article written by Defendant 4 contains the following: (a) concluding Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 to return to the Republic of Korea as pro-North Korea and North Korea; and (b) having to punish them as prescribed by the National Security Act; and (c) without any effort to respect the character of the expression, the article also contains suspicions, salutism, destruction, and insulting expressions that cannot be seen in other newspapers, such as the two arms, the instant force as soon as possible, and the agents.

Since there is no evidence to prove that Defendant 4 made efforts to confirm facts from coverage process or coverage to news report, even if the plaintiffs are a public figure, the above articles prepared by Defendant 4 may be evaluated as having lost substantial reasonableness as a malicious or highly rush attack beyond the scope of legitimate press activities, and it constitutes an insulting expression that destroys the plaintiffs' personality, and thus, illegality is recognized.

3) Defendant New Daily, Inc., asserts that Defendant 4 is not responsible for the fact that Defendant 4 was a member of the citizen’s discussion room, but Defendant 4 is a member of the Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., as seen earlier, and even if Defendant 4 is an outside member, Defendant 4 is trying to confirm the fact from coverage process or coverage to news report, and thus, the media company is obliged to bear liability for tort if it was an outside member without such efforts.

4) Therefore, Defendant 4 and Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd are jointly and severally liable to pay consolation money for tort to the Plaintiffs. In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, it is recognized that the amount of consolation money is reasonable to determine as KRW 15 million.

5. Claim against Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding, Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd., and Defendant Shipbuilding.

A. Defendant 6, Defendant Digital Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., Defendant Digital Chosun, and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

1) On March 24, 2012, Defendant 6, who is a reporter of the Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., Ltd., which issues the “Sagle” and the “Sagle”) for online newspaper shipbuilding. Defendant 6 drafted and inserted an article related to Plaintiff 1, as shown in [Attachment 13], on March 24, 2012, as a title of the said online newspaper shipbuilding.com and the said daily journal.

2) 피고 6은 위 기사에서, 『▽▽▽▽연합을 이끄는 실제 리더는 누구일까』, 『복수의 관계자들은 원고 1 △△△△당 대표는 얼굴마담에 불과하다고 했다』 , 『계파의 수장은 베일에 가려져 있다, 조직 자체가 점조직 형태로 운영되기 때문에 아주 핵심이 아니고서는 알 수가 없는 구조라는 것이다』, 『▽▽▽▽연합은 한 사람이 아니라 집단지도체제 비슷하게 운영된다는 얘기도 있다』, 『이번에 비례대표 3번을 받은 소외 4 후보(⊙⊙련 집행위원장)는 원고 1 대표를 이을 차세대 대표자라는 이야기가 나온다』라고 하였다.

3) Among the above articles prepared by Defendant 6, the part directly related to Plaintiff 1 is not the actual compromise with Plaintiff 1. The main contents thereof are as to who is the head of the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△, rather than undermining the Plaintiffs’ honor.

Even if the part that Plaintiff 1 did not have a substantial authority is detrimental to Plaintiff 1’s reputation, the illegality of the above article is not recognized in full view of the following: (a) even if the part that Plaintiff 1 did not have a substantial authority, Plaintiff 1, a political person who is a public figure, ought to bear suspicion and criticism; (b) the issue raising or doubt about the public figure of △△△△△ should be widely permitted and open to the public; and (c) the article deals with the question raising or suspicion about the matter related to the public figure, and it is extremely difficult to prove exactly due to its nature; and (d) it is extremely difficult to prove that there is any reasonable ground to believe that the suspicion or assertion is consistent with the truth or is true, the illegality of the above article should not be required to be proved strictly as in general cases.

4) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that Defendant 6, Defendant Digital Chosun, and Defendant Chosun Chosun, Co., Ltd. are liable to pay consolation money for tort to the plaintiffs on the ground of the above articles written by Defendant 6 is without merit.

B. Defendant 7 and Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

1) On March 24, 2012, Defendant 7, who was a reporter of Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding, prepared and posted an article related to the Plaintiffs as shown in [Attachment 14] Nonparty 3, that “Plaintiff 1’s “........ is not Plaintiff 1’▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽”)” on the online newspaper “......”

2) In the foregoing article written by Defendant 7, Nonparty 3 said that “Plaintiff 1’s representative is the same as the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△, he may be under the influence of his influence, but he was able to obtain today’s public perception as he had been engaged in any other election campaign that is different from the one that he had shown in the influence of the said force.” Accordingly, Defendant 1 said, Defendant 1, “Plaintiff 1’s representative,” and “Plaintiff 2, Plaintiff 1 and Nonparty 2, Plaintiff 2, who was the member of the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△△△△○, was aware of the fact that he was the member of the Guide and the member of the Guide (representative). Although Nonparty 3 was not a mother, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 did not stop his assertion that there was any difference between Plaintiff 1’s representative and the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△○.”

3) In light of the fact that the above article written by Defendant 7 is about whether the plaintiffs, who are the public figures of △△△△△ Group, are affiliated with the △△△△△△ Group in the form of displaying conflicting arguments between Nonparty 3 and Defendant 1, rather than protecting the reputation of the △△ Group, it is about the public matters that should be secured more freedom of the press than protecting the reputation of the △△ Group, and it should be deemed that the plaintiffs’ social evaluation based on the facts stated in the △△ article, rather than on the decrease of the plaintiffs’ social evaluation, the illegality is not recognized.

4) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that Defendant 7 and Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd. are liable to pay consolation money for tort to the plaintiffs on the ground of the above articles prepared by Defendant 7 is without merit.

C. Defendant 8 and Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding

1) On March 25, 2012, Defendant 8: (a) as the reporter of Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding, who operates online newspaper “Serocom”, Defendant 8 drafted and published an article related to the Plaintiffs, as shown in attached Form 15.

2) In the foregoing article written by Defendant 8, Defendant 1’s Twitter comments were quoted and reported as seen earlier. Defendant 1’s Twitter comments cited and reported as mentioned above were “The △△△△△△△△△△△ Party’s △△△△△△△△ Party’s election is planned to be a face to Plaintiff 1’s representative.” “The relationship between Plaintiff 1-Plaintiff 2 and Nonparty 4-B and Nonparty 5 is equally equal. The husband’s head and denial plays a role. In addition, the husband’s husband’s head and denial is another arche planning, and it was planned from the first year of university 1 to Plaintiff 1, and the husband’s husband 2 et al. as Lone Star, et al. concentrated on the ability to instigate the public.”

In the above article, Nonparty 5, the husband of Nonparty 4, was detained as a charge of activities (Violation of the National Security Act) by forming a pro rata organization called the "Mambun Research Council" in the past year, and Plaintiff 2, the husband of Plaintiff 1 representative, is also known as the part of the ▽▽▽▽△△△."

3) As seen in the above claim against Defendant 1, it cannot be deemed sufficient to present specific circumstances that make it possible to raise suspicion or make a subjective evaluation, and the content of the above expression is not equal to the plaintiffs who are the couple, and as such, raising the impression that Plaintiff 2 operated and used Plaintiff 1 from the time when Plaintiff 2 falls short of the intellectual ability, it is deemed that it infringes on the personality by distorted the truth.

The responsibility of defamation is not denied on the sole basis of citing another person's speech, and the defendant 8 has a duty of care to investigate whether it is true when reporting another person's speech which defames another person's reputation as a reporter, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant 8 has fulfilled such duty of care.

In addition, in addition to the fact that the above article written by Defendant 8 was detained as a violation of the National Security Act due to the suspicion that Nonparty 4’s husband created and operated a pro rata group, as seen above, it can be said that the plaintiffs’ husband and wife also expressed that it is a pro-North Korea force to the extent of punishment for violating the National Security Act, as in the case of Nonparty 4-B and Nonparty 5’s husband and wife. As such, if a specific person is designated as a pro-North Korea group, it should be deemed that the honor should be damaged.

4) Therefore, Defendant 8 and Defendant Digital Chosun was jointly and severally liable to pay consolation money for tort to the Plaintiffs. In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, it is recognized that the amount of consolation money is reasonable to determine as KRW 10 million.

D. Defendant 9 and Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

1) 피고 9는 인터넷신문 ‘조선닷컴’을 운영하는 피고 주식회사 디지틀조선일보의 기자로서 2012. 3. 25. 위 인터넷신문 조선닷컴에 〈☆☆☆ 피고 2 대변인 “▽▽▽▽연합, 국회 움켜쥐려 해”〉라는 제목으로 [별지 16]과 같이 원고들에 관련된 내용의 기사를 작성·게재하였다.

2) 피고 9가 작성한 위 기사에서는 『최근 원고 1 대표가 여론조사 경선 조작 사실이 드러난 이후에도 총선 출마를 강행하려 했던 이유가 구 ○○○○당의 한 계파였던 ▽▽▽▽연합이 당권을 놓지 않기 위해 압력을 행사했기 때문이라는 이야기가 나오면서, 정치권에 뜨거운 논란을 낳고 있다』고 하면서, 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고 2가 ☆☆☆당 중앙선대위 대변인으로서 발표한 성명을 인용하여 보도하였다. 이와 같이 인용하여 보도한 피고 2의 성명은『경선 조작사실이 드러나는 바람에 직격탄을 맞은 원고 1 △△△△당 공동대표가 총선 불출마를 선언했지만, ♤♤♤♤당은 ▽▽▽▽연합의 소외 10 전 ○○당 서울시당 위원장을 ♠♠을 후보로 인정했다, 이에 대해 ○○당 출신인 소외 3 ◈◈대 교수는 ▽▽▽▽연합의 얼굴 대신 아예 몸통이 나서는 격이라고 평했다』, 『▽▽▽▽연합은 △△△△당의 전신인 ○○당에서 패권을 잡기 위해 수단·방법을 가리지 않았던 세력, 조직원이라면 성폭력도 눈감아 주는 세력, 김일성 초상화를 걸어놓고 묵념하는 세력, 이런 세력이 ♤♤♤♤당을 좌지우지하는 △△△△당을 움직이고 있다는 사실에 대한민국의 장래를 걱정하는 다수 국민은 경악을 금치 못했을 것』, 『원고 1 대표는 ▽▽▽▽연합에 대해 모른다고 말했지만 그의 남편 원고 2 변호사도 이 조직에 속해 있다는 게 정설이고, △△△△당이 공천한 상당수의 후보도 조직원이라고 한다』는 것이었다.

3) Since the name announced by Defendant 2 is not recognized as unlawful as seen earlier, the above article of Defendant 9, which cited the name and reported, is not recognized as unlawful.

4) Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that Defendant 9 and Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. are liable to pay consolation money for tort to the plaintiffs on the ground of the above articles is without merit.

E. Defendant 10, Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

1) On March 26, 2012, Defendant 10: (a) was a reporter of Defendant Digital Chosun, Co., Ltd., Ltd., who is operating online newspaper “online.com”; (b) written and posted an article related to the Plaintiffs, as shown in attached Form 17, on March 26, 2012, in the said online newspaper shipbuilding.com and the said daily newspaper journal [total D-16] [Attachment D-16] [Plaintiff 1 husband]], as the title [Attachment 17], “Plaintiff 1 husband.”

2) In the foregoing article written by Defendant 10, “Plaintiff 2, the husband of Plaintiff 1, and the Plaintiff 2, who is the husband of Plaintiff 1, was a party member within △△△△△△ Party, was arguing that he was a party member of △△△△ Party, and reported by citing and reporting Defendant 1’s Twitter bulletin. As such, Defendant 1’s Twitter bulletin, which cited and reported, was also aware of the fact that Plaintiff 1’s husband and Plaintiff 2 is a party member of the ▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△△ party, and that Plaintiff 1 was a party member of △△△△△○ Party’s planning product.”

이어서 위 기사에서는, 다른 관계자의 말이라고 하면서 『원고 2 변호사는 ▽▽▽▽연합 소속이 아니라 북한에 더 우호적 입장인 ‘◎◎◎ ◎◎◎◎ ◎◎◎◎’와 가까운 것으로 안다』고 하였다. 또한 『2007년 7월 대법원은 ◎◎◎◎가 국가보안법상 이적단체라고 판결했다. 이 단체의 대표인 소외 36 변호사는 징역 2년에 집행유예 4년을 선고받았다, 그는 현재 원고 2 변호사가 대표구성원으로 있는 법무법인 □□에 같이 소속돼 있다.』, 『원고 2 변호사는 소외 37·소외 36 변호사 등과 함께 2006년 ○○○○당 당원들이 연루된 ▣▣회 간첩단 사건의 변호를 맡기도 하였다.』, 『원고 2 변호사는 ∋∋ 통일위원장으로 활동했다, 2003년 방송 인터뷰에 나와 대한항공 KAL기 폭파범 소외 6에 대해 ‘완전히 가짜다. 이건 어디서 데려왔는지 모르지만 절대로 북한 공작원이 아니라고 우리는 단정 짓는다’라고 말했었다.』라고 하였다.

3) 피고 10이 작성한 위 기사는 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고 1이 2012. 3. 21.부터 같은 달 24.까지 사이에 자신의 트위터 계정에 원고 1과 원고 2가 종북·주사파로서 ▽▽▽▽연합 자체라는 글을 게시한 후에 이러한 피고 1의 게시글을 인용하여 보도한 것이면서, 원고 2가 ▽▽▽▽연합보다 북한에 더 우호적으로서 이적단체로 판결된 ‘◎◎◎ ◎◎◎◎ ◎◎◎◎’와 가깝다고 함으로써, 원고 1과 원고 2가 종북·주사파임을 암시하거나 강조한 기사라고 할 것이어서, 그 위법성이 인정된다.

4) Therefore, Defendant 10, Defendant Digital Chosun, and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. are jointly and severally liable to pay consolation money for tort committed by the Plaintiffs. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the amount of consolation money is deemed to be reasonable as KRW 10 million.

6. Claim as to Defendant 13, Defendant Locul Tracul Tracul Co., Ltd., and Defendant Central Inquiry Agency

A. The knives of Defendant 13

Defendant 13, who operates the online newspaper’s “Central Daybook,” was a reporter of Defendant BCCB agent, and the Central Daybook, who published the “Central Daybook” on March 27, 2012, prepared and inserted a knife for the plaintiffs related to the plaintiffs, as shown in attached Form 18, on March 27, 2012, and on the Central Daybook and the aforesaid Central Daybook.

In the blade, "The representative of the political party of the Republic of Korea refused to regulate the 6.25 aggressions," and "the plaintiff's husband and wife has left North Korea with the 6.25 tortfeasors."

B. The plaintiffs' assertion

Defendant 13 stated false facts as it denied Plaintiff 1’s 6.25 South Korea or left North Korea by the Plaintiffs. In addition, at the time of the establishment of the above blade, the controversy over the North Korea against the Plaintiffs, starting from Defendant 1, was distorted through the media, and rapidly spreading, and Defendant 13, in the situation where the Plaintiffs were mistaken for the North Korea-North Korea-North Korea-North Korea-North Korea-North Korea-U.S., and Defendant 13 drafted the above blade, thereby suggesting the fact that the Plaintiffs were pro-North Korea-North Korea-North Korea-China. Accordingly, Defendant 13, Defendant 13, Defendant ACCBB, and Defendant Central Press Co., Ltd. are jointly and severally liable to pay consolation money for tort committed by the Plaintiffs.

C. Determination

1) In the knife forum drawn up by Defendant 13, the representative of Plaintiff 1’s ○○○○○○ in August 2010 was contributed to the radio. The listener “6.25”, and “The representative of Plaintiff 1 asked this answer. There is any dynamic controversy. There is any dynamic controversy, and later the answer will be put up later.” As seen earlier, “The representative of the political party of the Republic of Korea would be refused to regulate the 6.25 aggressions.”

As for the question of Plaintiff 1’s “6.25 South Korea and North Korea,” this knife the question of “(A)” is based on the fact (A) that Plaintiff 1 asked that “I will have a dynamic controversy. (b) the problem will be discussed more closely and later again, I will have the answer.” As such, the knife (B) expressed that Plaintiff 1 refused to define the 6.25 aggression, this expression is a pure opinion of the argue on the basis of the facts presented (A).

또한 위 칼럼에서는 앞서 본 바와 같이『원고 1 부부가 6·25 가해자 북한을 두둔하고 있다.』고 한 다음, 『부인은 6·25의 침공 주체를 얼버무린다.』, 『남편은 ∋∋ 통일위원장 시절 ‘KAL기 폭파범 소외 6’은 조작된 것이라고 주장했다. 2000년 방송 인터뷰에서 그는 ”완전히 가짜다. 이건 어디서 데려왔는지 모르지만 절대로 북한 공작원이 아니라고 우리는 단정 짓는다.“고 말했다.』고 하였다.

As above, Plaintiff 1 expressed his opinion that Plaintiff 1 left North Korea on the basis of the fact that Plaintiff 1 did not explicitly respond to the 6/25’s invasions, and Plaintiff 2 expressed his opinion that Plaintiff 2 left North Korea on the ground that Plaintiff 2 conspiredd with Nonparty 6 of the KAL press. Thus, this constitutes a pure opinion.

Therefore, in order to recognize the illegality of the above forum, the premise of the opinion expressed by Defendant 13 should be false, and there is no evidence to acknowledge such falsity.

2) The knives set up by Defendant 13 cannot be deemed as an expression that explicitly expresses the facts on which the opinion is based, or an expression that contains facts contained in the opinion (so-called “so-called classical opinion”). Even if Defendant 13 posted an expression with the intent to indicate the fact that the Plaintiffs are pro-North Korea forces, the said knives do not explicitly indicate that the Plaintiffs were pro-North Korea and pro-North Korea, and there is no circumstance to deem that the knives were expressed. Moreover, the said knives are related to the political ideology among the public matters, and thus, the freedom of speech and expression should be broadly guaranteed.

3) Thus, since the illegality of the above knife set up by Defendant 13 is not recognized, the plaintiffs' assertion that Defendant 13, Defendant 2 is jointly and severally liable to pay consolation money due to tort to the plaintiffs on the ground of the above knife.

7. The defendants' obligations

(a) Compensation money;

According to the above, the defendants' obligation to pay consolation money is as follows.

1) As a result of the tort, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from March 27, 2012 to May 15, 2013, which is the date of the first instance judgment, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment.

2) Defendants 3 and New Daily Co., Ltd. are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for 5 million won and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 27, 2012 to August 8, 2014, which is the date when the judgment of the competent court is rendered, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment.

3) Defendants 4 and New Daily Co., Ltd. jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until May 15, 2013, which is the date when the first instance judgment is rendered, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from March 27, 2012 to the date when the first instance judgment is rendered, as to the existence and scope of performance of their duties, as to the amount of KRW 15 million and the amount of KRW 10 million recognized as the first instance judgment among them, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5 million per annum as to the existence and scope of performance of their duties from March 27, 2012 to the date when the full payment is made. The amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date when the first instance judgment is rendered.

4) Defendant 8 and Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd. are jointly and severally liable to dispute on the existence and scope of performance of their duties from March 27, 2012 to March 8, 2014, which is the date of adjudication of the court of first instance, and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment.

5) Defendant 10, Defendant Digital Chosun, and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until May 15, 2013, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from March 27, 2012 to August 27, 2014, as the Plaintiffs seek from March 27, 2012, for the existence and scope of performance of their obligations, as they seek after the date of tort. The damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6 million won per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, shall be paid to the Plaintiffs at the rate of 5% per annum as to the existence and scope of their obligations from March 27, 2012 to the date of full payment.

(b) Disposition appropriate for restoring honor;

1) Taking into account the various circumstances indicated in the instant case, ordering the payment of consolation money to Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 8, Defendant 10, Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., Defendant Digital Daily Co., Ltd., Defendant Digital Daily Co., Ltd., and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., to restore honor infringed upon the Plaintiffs. As such, the Plaintiffs are entitled to seek the publication of a correction report to Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., Defendant Digital Daily Co., Ltd, Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd, Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd, Defendant Digital Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., Ltd., Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd., and Defendant Chosun Co., Ltd., Ltd

2) The contents, size, and method of publication of a correction report to be published by Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd., Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd., Defendant Digital Daily, and the contents, quantity, method of expression, location of publication, Plaintiffs’ intent, and other various circumstances revealed in the arguments that the Plaintiffs are pro-North Korea and North Korea, or they are affiliated with the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△△△ Group as a pro-Korean organization, taking into account the contents, quantity, method of publication, location of publication, and other various circumstances indicated in the arguments, the relevant part of the correction report to be published as described in [Attachment 1] through [Attachment 3] shall be published, and the size and vitality of the characters and main text of the correction report to be published shall be the same as each subject of the correction report,

In case of the character of the correction report for 48 hours (attached Form 1), the contents of the correction report shall be searched, and even at the bottom of the main text of the correction report, the above correction report shall be searched together with the news report subject to the correction report, and the size and vitality of the items and main text of the correction report shall be published in the same manner as each news report subject to the correction report, and after 48 hours have elapsed, the above correction report may be stored in the database of the article subject to the correction report.

Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd. fails to perform the above obligations, it will pay to the Plaintiffs the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following the deadline to the day the performance is completed.

48 hours (attached Form 2) shall be inserted on the top of the list of articles on the front page of the Internet newspaper Chosun.com (htp:/www. Sun.com) on the website of the Internet newspaper shipbuilding. The title of the correction report shall be searched, and the contents of the correction report shall be searched, at the bottom of the main text of the correction report, the correction report shall be searched together with the news subject to the correction report, and the size of the characters and the vitality of the main text shall be inserted in the same manner as the news subject to the correction report, and after the expiration of 48 hours, the above correction report shall be searched.

If Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. fails to perform the above obligation, it shall pay to the Plaintiffs the money calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following the due date until the due date.

(1) Within seven days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. published a correction report in the article publishing (attached Form 3) except for the advertisement column in the social aspect of the Chosun Daily. The title of the correction report is class 24 or class 24 or class 2 or class 18 or class 18 or class 18 or class 1 or class 1 or class 2 or class

In the event that Defendant Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. did not perform the above obligations, it will pay to the Plaintiffs the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following the deadline to the day of performance.

8. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the plaintiffs against the defendants 1, 3, 4, 10, 8, 10, 40, 10, 400, 400, and 60,000, and 100,000,000 were accepted within the scope of the above recognition. The plaintiff's remaining claim against the above defendants and each claim against the remaining defendants shall be dismissed as there is no justifiable reason.

Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant 1 is consistent with this conclusion, each appeal filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit.

Since the part against Defendant 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, the appeal by Defendant 2 is accepted, and the part against the above defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, the claim by the plaintiffs corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

Since the part on the payment of money to Defendant 3 and Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd. in the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this, the part on the plaintiffs' appeal partially accepted and the part on the plaintiffs' losing amount corresponding to the above recognized amount in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the payment order shall be issued to the above Defendants,

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the portion of each of the monetary payment of Defendant 4, Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd, Defendant 10, Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd, and Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. differs from this conclusion. As such, the part of the appeal by the Plaintiffs regarding the above recognized amount was partially accepted and the part against the Plaintiffs regarding the above recognition amount was revoked, and the above Defendants were ordered to pay it. The remaining appeals by the Plaintiffs and the remaining appeals by Defendant 4, Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd, Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd, Defendant 10, Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd, and Defendant Chosun

In the judgment of the court of first instance, since the portion of the monetary payment for the Defendant 8 and the Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. differs from this conclusion, the full appeal by the Plaintiffs against Defendant 8 and part of the appeal against the Defendant Digital Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. was accepted (the Plaintiffs appealed only against Defendant 8, with respect to KRW 10 million). The part against the Plaintiffs regarding the above recognition amount was revoked, and the payment was ordered to be made to the said Defendants, and the remaining appeal against the Defendant Digital Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. against the Defendant Digital Shipbuilding is dismissed.

Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant 9 and the Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. was different in conclusion, the appeal by the above defendants is accepted, and the part against the above defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, the plaintiffs' claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding, Defendant Chosun Chosun Shipbuilding, Defendant 13, Defendant Lee Woo-man Co., Ltd., and Defendant Central Min Il-soo Co., Ltd. among the judgment of the court of first instance is consistent with this conclusion. Therefore, all appeals filed by the Plaintiffs are dismissed as they are without merit.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the claim for the corrective report against Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding, Defendant Digital Chosun, and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., was partially concluded, and thus, it is so accepted in part and modified as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges intentionally (Presiding Judge)