1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is also acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be drieded - Parts 4 to 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dried as follows:

First, the news report of this case states that "A's personnel forced and refused to participate in A's capital increase with capital increase by taking advantage of the position of the press company as the owner of the news company, thereby reporting false facts and pressureing them through this." The news report of this case contains an expression that can identify the plaintiff as the subject of the report.

However, the following circumstances revealed through the facts acknowledged as seen earlier, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s name or personal information, and detailed acts or facts related to the Plaintiff are not indicated in the report materials of this case, ② the Plaintiff also recognized that the Plaintiff proposed to offer capital increase as a means to recover losses incurred after investment. From the Defendant’s perspective where the dispute occurred with the Plaintiff, there may be room to accept the proposal as unjust. As such, the expressions such as coercion, pressure, etc. are likely to be deemed to have neglected or emphasized the Defendant’s position. However, it is difficult to evaluate that the Plaintiff’s reputation is undermined by distorted specific facts. ③ At the time of the publication of the report materials of this case, the Plaintiff and interested parties, including the Defendant, were continuing legal disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and such circumstances were also known through the Plaintiff’s news article and the report materials of this case, and thus, it seems that there was no room for the Plaintiff to unilaterally trust only the Defendant’s assertion from the perspective of ordinary people in contact with the contents of the report materials of this case at the time.