1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that engages in the manufacture and sale of chemical products.

The defendant is a corporation that publishes an online newspaper "C" while running news news reporting business, etc. and operates its website (D).

B. On July 14, 2017, the Defendant posted the article called E (hereinafter “instant article”) on July 13:33, 2017, as indicated in the Defendant’s website (attached Form 3).

The article of this case includes the following contents:

(hereinafter “instant report”). ① A’s member of the National Assembly FSC requested the Ministry of Employment and Labor to supervise A’s special labor where a suspicion of destruction of labor union was raised.

A's assertion that the truth should be clarified by the supervision of special work in consideration of the seriousness of the case, as he is under suspicion that he has operated the old tide scenario after consultation with the law firm.

② The Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment held that “the company is promoting disciplinary action against the chairperson and executive members by opening the 17th Disciplinary Committee,” and “the company has not ceased to disarme the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment without resolving it through modernization.”

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant of the Plaintiff’s assertion damaged the Plaintiff’s reputation by openly expressing the following false facts with the instant report.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to take measures under Article 14(1) of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (hereinafter “Act on Press Arbitration”) and to delete the same content as the written correction report and the instant article (the Plaintiff is also subject to indirect compulsory enforcement on the corrected report and the deletion of articles), and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 10 million as compensation for damages caused by tort of defamation and its delay.

The defendant is under the suspicion that the plaintiff operated the scenario for the destruction of union upon consultation with the law firm.