All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, “a person who suffers damage due to the failure of the press report to be true” under Article 14 of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (hereinafter “victim”) refers to a person who is clearly recognized as having an individual relationship with the content of the report and who has an interest in filing a corrective report on the content of the report on the ground that the content of the report infringes one’s personal legal interests due to the failure to be true (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da52649, Sept. 2, 201). The lower court recognized the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that a specific person subject to the report by the FFI is “JI,” and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have an individual relationship with the content of the report, and that the said article cannot be deemed to have undermined the Plaintiff’s reputation by impairing the Plaintiff’s social evaluation, etc.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirement of a request for a corrective report and the establishment of defamation.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that part of the part concerning the sales price of the instant real estate among Kergical articles contravenes objective truth, but it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s reputation was substantially damaged due to the above part of the article, and that the part concerning the pressure to Kergical Office of Education among Kergical articles related to the pressure to Ker’s Office of Education is also deemed false, and that it is unlawful to draw up and publish the article.