1. Within seven days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the Defendant shall be the highest group of the article list of the initial screen.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a local government subject to the Local Autonomy Act, and the Defendant is a press organization that publishes “E” as a general weekly newspaper and operates “C” as an online newspaper.

B. On August 23, 2018, Nonparty F filed a claim against the Plaintiff for information disclosure on the current status of enforcement of publicity expenses for newspapers, etc., and on September 5, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the F of the information disclosure data (hereinafter “first information disclosure”) to the Defendant in 2015, indicated that the Plaintiff executed 13,750,000 won for total 13 items (12 items, and 1 case of the Council secretariat) against the Defendant in 2015. (C) citing the foregoing data, the Defendant posted an article of “G” (hereinafter “Internet article”) as indicated in attached Table 1 on the C website (hereinafter “the instant online article”). According to the foregoing Internet article, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff’s total content of the information disclosure document was forged and executed by 150,000 won (hereinafter “the instant article”) to the Defendant’s representative director 20,000 won, and the Plaintiff did not have any doubt that it was executed by 150,0000 won.

E. On September 30, 2018, the Defendant posted an article of “I” (hereinafter “the instant paper article”) on the page Nos. 131 published on September 30, 2018, and on the ground article, the content of the instant secondary information disclosure was not reflected. As seen earlier, as in the Internet article, the advertising fee executed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in 2015 is merely KRW 1.50,000,000.