1. The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to that part is all satisfied.

1. The facts under the basis of the facts are either in dispute between the parties, or acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1 and video (including paper numbers).

[1] The Plaintiff is currently working as a fashion model in a foreign country after informing the name of K to the winners of J cable TV.

Defendant Cultural Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Cultural Broadcasting”) broadcasts the program “D” as a terrestrial broadcasting business entity that broadcasts television.

Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) produced the above “D” program as an external producer, and supplied it to Defendant Culture Broadcasting. Defendant C was in charge of the production of the said program as a co-investment affiliated with Defendant B.

[2] The police applied for a detention warrant on two women who threatened L film I.

It was suspected that I demanded 5 billion won to spread the video by dividing the lusence theory.

Defendant B produced the “D” program dealing with the instant case as Defendant C in charge, and supplied it to Defendant Culture Broadcasting.

Defendant Culture Broadcasting broadcasted the above program E

(hereinafter “instant broadcast”). 2. The parties’ assertion

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, one of the two women, who demanded 5 billion won of a film distribution I by threatening the film distribution I to disseminate the video of the instant broadcast, and the filmed the images of another television program with which the Plaintiff contributed, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion was a model A.

This means that the plaintiff made a statement of false facts as he threatened I.

Therefore, a corrective report is sought against the Defendant’s cultural broadcasting, and damages arising from defamation is claimed against the Defendants.

B. In the broadcast of this case’s assertion by the Defendants, only one of the two women who threatened I was “a model A” and such “a model A” did not mean that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants did not indicate any false fact.

3. Determination A.