1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,000,000.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who served E in Seoul Special Metropolitan City D District, and the Defendant is a company that runs online newspaper publishing and selling business.

B. In G election conducted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff went out as a candidate for the intraparty competition in Seoul Special Metropolitan City D local constituency, and was investigated by the prosecution on suspicion of violation of the Public Official Election Act that the Plaintiff provided money and valuables to local voters.

C. On the Defendant’s Internet homepage (C) from March 7, 2016 to April 14, 2016, the Defendant published an article to the effect that the prosecution’s investigation was commenced on the charge of violating the Public Official Election Act regarding the provision of money and valuables against the Plaintiff as follows:

(hereinafter “each of the instant articles”). The date of publication of the Nos. 141, March 7, 2016 (hereinafter “instant articles”). L on March 9, 2016, March 14, 2016, respectively.

D. Meanwhile, on March 9, 2016, the Defendant reported that “at the time of publication of the article of J’s title, the Plaintiff was a member of the N Party O and is going to go to G election at the general line of “at the time of publication of the article of J’s M election campaign” (hereinafter “the article of this case’s modification”). On the following day, the Plaintiff revealed that the Plaintiff was absent from the election of M, published the article of this case by modifying the article of this case to the effect that “at the general line of the M, the Plaintiff was unable to obtain officialship and is going to go to G.”

E. The Seoul East District Prosecutors' Office has investigated the plaintiff's suspicion of violating the Public Official Election Act, on April 29, 2016, and on the same year.

5. A decision to dismiss each accusation against the plaintiff on 19. The same year was rendered.

7. 7. The case was terminated on the ground that the Plaintiff’s petition against the Plaintiff was groundless.

F. On September 28, 2016, the election commission on the Defendant’s Internet homepage was found to have carried out an election campaign in advance, such as finding out the local residents’ mountain groups in November of the past year, sending gifts to social welfare centers, etc., and requested investigation to the prosecution for the last three months.

However, the results of prosecutorial investigation have passed.