1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this Court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the following Paragraph 2, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the court's decision of the first instance except for the dismissal as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “B The Plaintiff, although there was any fact that he had been subject to the closure of internal investigation, was prior to the completion of internal investigation at the time of the preparation of the instant article, and currently under investigation due to suspicion of occupational embezzlement related thereto.”

② The Plaintiff was subject to the Seoul District Prosecutor’s Office’s disposition regarding the suspected violation of the Act on the Prohibition of Requests for Supplementary Education in 2017, but the Plaintiff was not punished as an employee belonging to the Seoul District Prosecutor’s Office. This is because there was no joint penal provision that is punished as an employee belonging to the Plaintiff’s organization. The Plaintiff’s receipt of a place for free by the Plaintiff’s member organization and the Plaintiff’s previous representative violated the Prohibition of Requests for Supplementary Education Act, and the Plaintiff’s suspension of indictment is recognized, and the Plaintiff’s previous representative violated the Prohibition of Requests for Supplementary Education

3. Judgment on the claim for counterargument (including the part added by the court)

A. (1) Determination on the cause of a claim is 1) Any person who suffers damage from a press report on a factual assertion may claim a counterargument report on the content of the report regardless of whether the content of the report is true (Article 16(1) and (2) of the Press Arbitration Act): Provided, That where the victim has no legitimate interest in exercising his/her right to claim a counterargument report, where the content of the counterargument report claimed is clearly contrary to the fact or is unlawful, etc. (Articles 16(3) and 15(4)2 of the Press Arbitration Act), the press company may refuse to claim a counterargument report (Article 16(3) and 15(4) of the Press Arbitration Act).