1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2:

As E, the Plaintiff is currently serving as a member of the F Committee and an executive secretary of the G Committee from around 2008, and the Defendant is a newspaper company that issues “D” in daily newspapers.

B. At the second G Committee meeting of the National Assembly (Extraordinary Session) held by I, as a major issue, the case related to sexual traffic was discussed, and the case was reported by his bereaved family members who committed suicide on the grounds of the coercion of drinking and sexual intercourse (hereinafter “J case”), the case where the former B BJ officers et al. received an exorbitr from the person related to his duties and received an exorbitr from the person related to his duties and received an improper statement from the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency, and the case related to this, etc.

C. Accordingly, when questioning whether the Plaintiff included a journalist among those who were controlled by sexual traffic to I, and whether the Defendant’s intention is not related to the J case, the media company made a statement in attached Form 2 to the purport that the education to prevent sexual traffic, which is currently conducted for public officials, should also be extended to the media company, etc. (hereinafter “instant statement”).

On the following day, the Defendant published a private opinion in attached Form 3 (hereinafter “the private opinion of this case”) that criticizes the Plaintiff’s speech of this case under the title “L” against K Party A’s press in the Oralian Republic of Korea (hereinafter “D”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 did not have made a statement in the instant speech as “marists and female residents,” and even though there was no fact that the Plaintiff had made “L” to the press, the Defendant is “M” who left the instant private opinion with the Plaintiff at the political stage.

In this case, a journalist is paid money and female.