Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Kim citing-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 14 others (Law Firm Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 17, 2013

1. Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiffs the amount of KRW 4 million per annum from March 27, 2012 to May 15, 2013; KRW 5 million per annum from March 27, 2012 to KRW 8 million; KRW 10 million per annum from May 15, 2013 to KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. A. Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., within seven (7) days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, by inserting the title of the correction report as described in the attached Table 1 in the upper end of the list of articles on the front page of the Internet newspaper New Daily (http:/www. www.ney.co.kr) on the website for forty-eight (48) hours at the top of the list of articles on the front page of the screen. The contents of the correction report shall be searched, and even at the bottom of the main text of the article on the correction report, the said correction report shall be searched together with the article on the correction report, and the size and active nature of the title and main text shall be published in the same manner as the article on the news database, and after forty-eight (48) hours have elapsed, the said correction report may be stored and searched;

B. Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd shall pay to the Plaintiffs an amount of money equivalent to KRW 500,000 per day from the day following the due date to the date of completion of the implementation, where Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd fails to perform the obligations under the above paragraph

3. (a) Within seven days from the date each judgment becomes final and conclusive,

1) Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd.: (a) by inserting the title of the correction report as stated in the attached Table 2 at the top of the list of articles on the front page of the Internet newspaper Chosun.com (htp:/www. www. Sun.com) for forty-eight hours on the website of the Internet newspaper; and (b) by inserting the said correction report at the bottom of the main text of the news report, the contents of the said correction report shall be searched; and (c) by inserting the said correction report at the bottom of the main text of the news report, the said correction report shall be searched together with the news subject to the correction report; (d) the size and type of letters as indicated in the title and main text of the correction report shall be published as the news subject to the correction report; and (e) after forty

2) The defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. shall publish the attached Form 3 correction report in the article publishing the article except for the advertisement column for the side of the society of Joseon Shipbuilding in the form of No. 24 in the form of a class 24 in the form of a class 15 in the form of a class 24 in the form of a class 2

B. In the event that Defendant Digital Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. fail to perform their obligations under the above paragraph (1), each amount of money calculated by the ratio of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following each time limit until the completion of performance shall be paid to the Plaintiffs.

4. The plaintiffs' respective claims against Defendant 3, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 13, Defendant C&B agent corporation, Defendant C&B agent corporation, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., Defendant New Daily, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding, and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., respectively are dismissed.

5. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiffs and Defendants 1, 2, 4, Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., and the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants 3, 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 13, Defendant 13, and the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, Defendant 3, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 13, and Defendant Lee Il-sung Co., Ltd., and the central news manager of the Defendant Co., Ltd

6. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

1. For the plaintiffs:

(a) Defendants 1 and 2, respectively, KRW 50 million;

(b) 10 million won for Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd.;

2) Of the amount described in paragraph (1) above, Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd and each of them, Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 respectively KRW 50 million;

(c) 1) Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. amounting to KRW 150 million;

2) Of the amount set forth in paragraph (1) above, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, and Defendant 10, respectively, among the amount set forth in paragraph (1) above, Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. and each of them:

D. 1) Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.: 60 million won;

2) Of the amount set forth in Paragraph 1 above, Defendant Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. and each of the aforementioned Paragraph 1, Defendant 6 and Defendant 10 respectively, KRW 30 million;

(e) 1) Defendant 13 is KRW 60 million;

2) Of the amount described in Defendant 13 and each of the above paragraph 1 above, Defendant Loc Trac Trac Trac Track and Defendant Central Trac Track Co., Ltd. KRW 30 million, respectively.

In addition, with respect to each of the above amounts, 5% interest per annum from March 27, 2012 to the sentencing of this case and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. A. 1) Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd. shall display the title of the correction report in [Attachment 4] on the top of the top of the article on the front page page of the Internet newspaper New Daily (htp:/www.W.ne.co.co.), for 48 hours from the date of service of each judgment, and shall display it in [Attachment 4] and search the contents of the correction report, and also publish the same at the bottom of the main text of the article on the correction report so that the contents of the correction report can be searched together with the news subject to the correction report, and then publish the above correction report at the bottom of the main text of the article on the correction report so that it can be searched, and after 48 hours from the date of service of each judgment, the size of characters and vitality of the main text of the correction report in the same manner as the news subject to the correction report, the above correction report may

2) The Defendant Digital Chosun Co., Ltd.: (a) posted the title of the correction report as indicated in attached Table 5 at the top of the list of articles on the front page of the Internet newspaper Chosun.com (htp:/www. www. Sun.com) on its website for 48 hours from the date of delivery of this judgment; (b) by inserting it in [Attachment 5]; (c) by inserting it, the contents of the said correction report should be searched; and (d) inserting the said correction report at the bottom of the main text of the news subject to the correction report, so that it can be searched with the news subject to the correction report; (b) by inserting the said correction report at the bottom of the main text of the news subject to the correction report; (c) the size of the characters and the active entity as described in the items and main text of the

3) When Defendant ACCB Co., Ltd. puts the title of the correction report in [Attachment 6] attached Table 6 on the top of the list of articles on the front page of the Internet newspaper central library (htp:/www. joint and several pages. Sn.com) on the website for 48 hours from the date of service of this judgment, the contents of the correction report shall be searched, and when it is distinctive, the contents of the correction report shall be searched, and even at the bottom of the main text of the correction report, the correction report shall be searched together with the news subject to the correction report by inserting the correction report at the bottom of the main text of the correction report, and the size and active itself of the title and main text shall be published in the same manner as the news subject to the correction report, and shall be searched after 48 hours from the date of service of this judgment; and

B. If Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd., Defendant Digital Chosun, Defendant Digital Chosun Shipbuilding, Defendant Lee Jong-chul Co., Ltd., Defendant Lee Woo did not perform their obligations under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) above, each amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following each deadline to the day the implementation is completed shall be paid to the Plaintiffs.

3. A. (1) Within 7 days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. shall publish a correction report attached Form 7 in the article publishing the article except for the social aspects of Chosun Shipbuilding, in the form of title 24, in the form of class 24, in the form of a class 24, in the form of a class 18, in the form of a class 1

2) Within seven days from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant Central Daily Co., Ltd. published a correction of the attached Form 8 in the article publishing the article except for the social aspects of Central Daily, in the form of title 24 in the form of a class 24 in the form of a class 24 in the form of a class 2 in the form of a class 18 in the form of

B. In the event that Defendant Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Defendant Central Daily Co., Ltd, did not perform the obligations under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the above A, each amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 500,000 per day from the day following each time limit to the completion of the performance shall be paid to the Plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

(a) Status of parties;

1) 원고 1은 2010. 7.경부터 2011. 12.경까지 ○○○○당(△△△△당의 전신이다)의 대표로, 2011. 12.경부터 2012. 5.경까지 △△△△당의 공동대표이자 제18대 국회의원으로 활동하였고, 제19대 국회의원 선거(2012. 4. 19. 실시)에 서울 ♠♠을 지역구의 △△△△당 예비후보로 출마하였다가 2012. 3. 23. 위 예비후보직을 사퇴한 주1) 사람이고, 원고 2는 법무법인(유한) □□의 공동 대표변호사로 원고 1의 남편이다.

2) Defendant 1, using Twitter, has written comments on the Plaintiffs as follows, and Defendant 2 was entrusted with the representative of the Central Line Subrogation on March 21, 2012, and from May 2012, 2012, Defendant 1 is a person who is working as the 19th National Assembly member.

3) Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant New Daily”) is a legal entity running online newspaper “htp” (www:/www.newdily.co. Ltd.) and Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 are the reporters belonging to Defendant New Daily.

4) Defendant Digital Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Digital Shipbuilding”) is a corporation operating online newspaper “htp” (htp:/www. Sp. Sun.com). Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Chosun”) is a corporation issuing a “daily” as a daily newspaper. Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, and Defendant 10 are the reporters belonging to Defendant Digital Shipbuilding and Defendant Shipbuilding.

5) Defendant Lee Woo-Woo (hereinafter “Defendant Lee Woo-Woo”) is a corporation operating an online newspaper “Central Etp” (htp:/wwwww. joint and several TWang. Sn.com). Defendant Central Twit-Woo (hereinafter “Defendant Central Twit-Woo”) is a corporation issuing a “Central Twit-Woo” as a daily newspaper, and Defendant 13 is a reporter belonging to Defendant Lee Woo-Woo and Defendant Central Twit-Woo.

6) ○○○○당은 2000. 1. 30.경 창당되어 2004년 제17대 국회의원 선거에서 소속 후보자 10명(지역구 2명, 비례대표 8명)이 당선되었고, 2008년 제18대 국회의원 선거에서 5명(지역구 2명, 비례대표 3명)이 당선되었으며, 2011. 12.경 해산하였다. △△△△당은 2011. 12.경 ○○○○당, ▼▼▼▼당, ★★★당 탈당파(◀◀◀◀◀연대)의 통합으로 창당되었고, 2012년 제19대 국회의원 선거에서 소속 후보자 13명(지역구 7명, 비례대표 6명)이 당선되었다.

B. The reasons why the Defendants posted or reported articles

1) 원고 1의 ♠♠을구 예비후보 사퇴 등

♤♤♤♤당과 △△△△당은 2012. 3.경 제19대 국회의원 선거에 출마할 후보자를 선발하기 위하여 다수의 지역구에서 야권후보 단일화를 시도하였다. 서울 ♠♠을 지역구에서도 양당 사이에 야권후보 단일화가 이루어져, △△△△당이 내세운 원고 1이 야권후보로 선정되었으나, 원고 1의 선거캠프에 소속된 자들이 단일화 과정에서 여론조사를 조작하였다는 의혹이 불거지자, 원고 1은 2012. 3. 23. 위 지역구 예비후보를 사퇴하게 되었고, 그 대신 △△△△당이 추천한 전 ○○○○당 서울시당 위원장이었던 소외 10이 후보자로 출마하여 제19대 국회의원에 당선하게 되었다.

한편 성남 ♥♥구 지역구에 야권단일화 후보로 출마하려던 △△△△당 소외 18 후보는 과거 자신의 성추행 의혹에 관한 언론보도가 나오자 2012. 3. 22. 예비후보직을 사퇴하기도 하였다.

2) The △△△△△ Party’s proportional representative election operation suspicion, etc.

On March 14, 2012, from around the same month to around the 18th day of the same month, the △△△△△△ Party held online and on-site voting to select proportional representative candidates. As a result, the proportional representative candidates of the △△△△△△ Party (No. 19, No. 2, No. 9, No. 3, No. 4, No. 20, No. 20, No. 5, No. 21, No. 22, No. 7, No. 23, No. 23, No. 9, No. 24, and No. 25, etc.) announced on March 21, 2012.

그런데 비례대표 후보자 선정 과정에서 선거인명부 조작이 있었다는 의혹이 제기되었고, 소외 20 후보에 관해서는 ♣♣♣♣♣노동조합 위원장을 역임할 시 전국민주노동조합총연맹 소속원이 ♣♣♣♣♣노동조합 여직원을 성폭행한 사건의 후속 처리를 제대로 하지 못하여 후보자의 자질이 없다는 주장이 제기되기도 하였다.

C. The Defendants’ posts, articles, etc.

1) The contents of Defendant 1’s Twitter notice

Defendant 1: (a) from March 21 to December 24, 200, he was aware of Nonparty 1’s position in the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”).

2) Details of Defendant 2’s name announcement

피고 2는 2012. 3. 25. 자신이 속해있는 ☆☆☆당 인터넷 홈페이지(인터넷 주소 2 생략) 게시판에 〈실체 드러난 △△△△당의 ‘▽▽▽▽연합’, ‘민주’, ‘진보’의 가면을 쓰고 총선 나선다. ♤♤♤♤당도 눈치 보며 끌려다니는 현실, 현명한 국민은 ‘두 당 야합’의 본색을 안다〉는 제목으로, 별지10 기재와 같은 성명을 게재하면서, ‘원고 1 △△△△당 공동대표가 출마하려 했다가 사퇴한 서울 ♠♠을 지역구는 원고 1 대표의 배후인 ▽▽▽▽연합 몫으로 그대로 남게 됐다’, ‘원고 1 대표는 ▽▽▽▽연합에 대해 모른다고 말했지만, 그의 남편인 원고 2도 이 조직에 속해 있다는 게 정설이다‘라고 기재하고, ‘원고 1을 대신해 서울 ♠♠을 지역구에 전 ○○○○당 서울시당 위원장인 소외 10이 출마하는 것은 (▽▽▽▽연합)의 얼굴(원고 1) 대신 아예 몸통(소외 10)이 나서는 격’이라고 하는 소외 3의 말을 인용하여 원고들이 ▽▽▽▽연합의 소속임을 표현하고, 이러한 ▽▽▽▽연합에 대하여 ‘△△△△당의 전신인 ○○○○당에서 패권을 잡기 위해 수단·방법을 가리지 않았던 세력, 조직원이라면 성폭력도 눈감아 주는 세력, 김일성 초상화를 걸어놓고 묵념하는 세력’으로 묘사하였으며, 위 ‘▽▽▽▽연합이 제19대 국회의원 선거에서 국회를 움켜쥐고, 12월 대통령선거에서 연합정권을 출범시킨 다음 5년 뒤에 그들만의 정권을 세우려 한다’는 내용을 게재하였다(이하 ‘이 사건 성명’이라 한다).

3) Articles written by Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 (Defendant New Daily Report)

A) Defendant 3

Defendant 3, on March 26, 2012, on an online newspaper “New Daily” (http:/www.newd.co.co.co. Ltd.) (htp) on the online newspaper on March 26, 2012, the relationship between Plaintiff 1-Plaintiff 2 and Nonparty 4 and the non-party 5 couple is too equal. The relationship between Plaintiff 1-Plaintiff 2 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 5 couples is too equal. The husband is head and the denial plays a role. In addition, the husband took a position of her head and the denial. In addition, the Plaintiff 1 was marked in the △△△△△△△△○ University’s college from the first year to the public, and Plaintiff 2 et al. planned to work as a day-to-day by focusing on the public ability, and the proportional representative candidate for △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Party prepared the article containing Plaintiff 1’s article as Defendant 1’s representative news.

B) Defendant 4

피고 4는 2012. 3. 27. 인터넷신문 ‘뉴데일리’(http://www.newdaily.co.kr)에 〈원고 1 원고 2 부분의 종북성향〉이라는 제목으로 ‘원고 1 부부는 대한민국에서 사법고시에 합격하여 종북좌파로 살려고 공부를 했는가’, ‘부부가 다 사법고시에 합격하여 개천에서 용이 나서 승천을 못하고 북괴 김정일 앞으로 떨어져서 이무기가 되었나 보다’, ‘원고 1 △△당 대표의 ♠♠을 여론조사 조작 사건으로 낙마를 하면서 그의 부군 원고 2가 소속되어 있는 ▽▽▽▽연합이라는 종북좌파 주사파 조직이 도마에 오르고 있다’, ‘원고 1 부군인 원고 2 변호사는 여러 분분에서 종북좌파로 활동하고 있다. 이번에 ▽▽▽▽연합이라는 주사파들이 모여서 만든 조직에서도 아마 지도자급이라는 설이 있다’, ▽▽▽▽연합은 순 새빨간 세력들이 모여 만든 조직으로 실질적으로 △△당의 오너 역할을 하는 곳이라는 것이 대체적인 인식이다‘, △△당의 원고 1 대표의 남편인 원고 2는 대한민국에서 북괴가 주장하는 발언들을 앵무새처럼 그대로 따라하는 종북좌파 중에 종북좌파의 사상을 가진 자이다’, ‘원고 2가 ∋∋에서 올린 글들을 보면 정말 북괴 대변인 노릇을 한 것이 그대로 들어나고 있다’, ‘간첩들을 옹호하면서 정부를 비판하는 원고 2는 대한민국 국민이라고 볼 수 없고, 간첩이 아닌지 모르겠다’, ‘원고 1이 당 대표로 있는 △△당이나 원고 1 남편 원고 2는 색이 빨간 종북좌파들이다. 이런 자들이 대한민국 법을 다루어서 먹고 사는 직업을 가졌다는 것이 바로 대한민국 법을 무력화시키려는 북괴의 전략일 것이다’, ‘이들이 바로 대한민국 국론을 분열시키고 전복시키려는 종북좌파들이기 때문이다’는 내용이 포함된 별지12 기재와 같은 기사를 게재하였다(이하 ‘피고 4 작성의 기사’라고 한다).

4) Articles prepared by Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, and Defendant 10 (Defendant Digital Chosun, Defendant Digital Chosun’s Report)

A) Defendant 6

피고 6은 2012. 3. 24. 인터넷신문 ‘조선닷컴’(http://www.chosun.com)의 홈페이지와 일간지인 ‘조선일보’ A5면에 〈점조직 ▽▽▽▽… “원고 1은 얼굴마담”〉이라는 제목으로 ‘▽▽▽▽연합을 이끄는 실제 리더는 누구일까. 복수의 관계자들은 원고 1 △△△△당 대표는 얼굴마담에 불과하다고 했다. 계파의 수장은 베일에 가려져 있다’, ‘조직 자체가 점조직 형태로 운영되기 때문에 아주 핵심이 아니고서는 알 수가 없는 구조라는 것이다’, ‘▽▽▽▽연합은 한 사람이 아니라 집단지도체제 비슷하게 운영된다는 얘기도 있다’, ‘이번에 비례대표 3번을 받은 소외 4 후보(⊙⊙련 집행위원장)는 원고 1 대표를 이을 차세대 대표자라는 이야기가 나온다’라는 내용이 포함된 별지13 기재와 같은 기사를 게재하였다(이하 ’피고 6 작성의 기사‘라고 한다).

B) Defendant 7

Defendant 7, on March 24, 2012, on the website of the online newspaper “htp” (htp:/www. Sunit.com) (“Plaintiff 1’s “non-party 1”, the title “Defendant 1’s representative is Defendant 1’s planning product of the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽”)” and “Plaintiff 1’s husband 2-C is the hub of the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△ and his representative theory)” and “Non-party 3 was the professor of this fact, but Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1’s representative did not stop claiming that there is a difference between Plaintiff 1’s and the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△”, published the article as indicated in [Attachment 14], which includes the content of citing the comments on the Twitter of Defendant 1’s writing.

C) Defendant 8

Defendant 8, on March 25, 2012, on the Internet newspaper “htp:/www.Sun.com” (hereinafter “Plaintiff 1”)’s website “Defendant 1”, “The new “Nefafafafafafafafafafaf,” which was the party to the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Party, plans to raise an objection to the Plaintiff 1’s representative, and the relationship between Plaintiff 1-Plaintiff 2 and Nonparty 4-B, and Nonparty 5 is too equal. In addition, the husband is the husband and the husband act as the husband. In addition, from the first year of university, the Plaintiff 1 was marked as the ▽△△△△△ Group from the date of university 1 to the her husband, and Plaintiff 2 et al. planned to publish the article “Defendant 1’s husband’s ability to instigate the public,” which is also the Plaintiff 1’s representative and the Plaintiff 2.

D) Defendant 9

피고 9는 2012. 3. 25. 인터넷신문 ‘조선닷컴’(http://www.chosun.com)의 홈페이지에 〈☆☆☆당 피고 2 대변인 “▽▽▽▽연합, 국회 움켜쥐려 해”〉라는 제목으로 ‘최근 원고 1 대표가 여론조사 경선 조작 사실이 드러난 이후에도 총선 출마를 강행하려 했던 이유가 구 ○○○○당의 한 계파였던 ▽▽▽▽연합이 당권을 놓지 않기 위해 압력을 행사했기 때문이라는 이야기가 나오면서, 정치권에 뜨거운 논란을 낳고 있다’고 상황을 설명하면서 ‘경선 조작사실이 드러나는 바람에 직격탄을 맞은 원고 1 △△△△당 공동대표가 총선 불출마를 선언했지만, ♤♤♤♤당은 ▽▽▽▽연합의 소외 10 전 ○○당 서울시당 위원장을 ♠♠을 후보로 인정했다’, ‘이에 대해 ○○당 출신인 소외 3 ◈◈대 교수는 ▽▽▽▽연합의 얼굴 대신 아예 몸통이 나서는 격이라고 평했다’, ‘▽▽▽▽연합은 △△△△당의 전신인 ○○당에서 패권을 잡기 위해 수단·방법을 가리지 않았던 세력, 조직원이라면 성폭력도 눈감아 주는 세력, 김일성 초상화를 걸어놓고 묵념하는 세력, 이런 세력이 ♤♤♤♤당을 좌지우지하는 △△△△당을 움직이고 있다는 사실에 대한민국의 장래를 걱정하는 다수 국민은 경악을 금치 못했을 것’, ‘원고 1 대표는 ▽▽▽▽연합에 대해 모른다고 말했지만 그의 남편 원고 2 변호사도 이 조직에 속해 있다는 게 정설이고, △△△△당이 공천한 상당수의 후보도 조직원이라고 한다’는 피고 2의 이 사건 성명 중 일부를 인용보도 하는 내용의 별지16 기재와 같은 기사를 게재하였다(이하 ‘피고 9 작성의 기사’라고 한다).

E) Defendant 10

피고 10은 2012. 3. 26. 인터넷신문 ‘조선닷컴’(http://www.chosun.com)의 홈페이지와 일간지인 ‘조선일보’ A6면에 〈[총선 D-16] “▽▽▽▽ 브레인은 원고 1 남편”〉이라는 제목으로 ‘원고 1 대표의 남편인 원고 2 변호사가 △△△△당 내 당권파로 알려진 ▽▽▽▽연합 소속이었다는 주장이 퍼지고 있다’고 상황을 설명하고, ‘원고 1 남편 원고 2가 ▽▽▽▽연합의 브레인이자 이데올로그(이론 제공자)라는 점은 다들 알고 있다’, ‘원고 1은 ▽▽▽▽의 기획상품’이라는 피고 1의 트위터 게시글을 인용보도하면서, 오히려 뒷부분에 관계자의 말을 인용하여 ‘원고 2 변호사는 ▽▽▽▽연합 소속이 아니라 북한에 더 우호적 입장인 〈◎◎◎ ◎◎◎◎ ◎◎◎◎〉와 가까운 것으로 안다’고 표현하는 내용의 별지17 기재와 같은 기사를 게재하였다(이하 ‘피고 10 작성의 기사’라고 한다).

5) The blades in Defendant 13’s document (Defendant 1’s E-Csch Rexroth and Defendant Central Daily Report)

On March 27, 2012, Defendant 13 posted a knife, as shown in attached Form 18, stating that “The representative of the political party of the Republic of Korea (Plaintiff 1) of the Republic of Korea (Plaintiff 1) refuses to provide for the 6.25 aggressions,” and “Plaintiff 1 husband (Plaintiffs) has left North Korea,” on the website of the online newspaper “htp:/www T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T.com.com.” and “Central T. T.k.com.” (hereinafter “Defendant 13’s knife forum”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 13, Eul evidence 1 to 12, Eul evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

Although the Plaintiffs did not become a member of the organization called the “▽▽▽▽”, the Defendants (excluding Defendants 13, Defendant 2’s written notice, name, and Defendant Central Daily) are affiliated with the organization called the “▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽”) through each article of the instant Twitter,” the Plaintiffs indicated false facts as if they were to play the friendly head role of the said organization, and in particular, Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 expressed the Plaintiffs as North Korea and North Korea North Korea and damaged the Plaintiffs’ honor.

Defendant 13, Defendant CCBBB, and Defendant Central Inquiry Agency indicated the false facts in detail that “Plaintiff 1 refused to comply with the 6.25 aggression” and “the Plaintiff left North Korea by the 6.25 perpetrator” through the knife of Defendant 13’s preparation, thereby impairing the honor of the Plaintiffs. Even if it is an expression of opinion, it indicates the existence of specific facts likely to infringe on the Plaintiffs’ social value or assessment by indirect and indirect expressions, and thus, it can be deemed that the honor of the Plaintiffs was damaged.

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay consolation money and damages for delay for mental damage suffered by the plaintiffs due to the posting of the Twitter, name, article, and knife corresponding to each of the plaintiffs, and they also have the obligation to publish each correction report as appropriate disposition necessary for restoring honor.

3. Determination

A. Whether defamation and personal rights are infringed

1) Criteria for determination

Defamation, which is a tort under the Civil Act, refers to an act of infringing upon an objective evaluation received from a society on a human value, such as a person’s character, virtue, reputation, and credit, and so long as such objective evaluation is infringed, it may also be established by an expression of opinion or comment. However, mere expression of opinion alone cannot be deemed as impeding the other party’s social evaluation. Thus, in the case of pure opinion or comment that is not premised on a statement of fact, liability for damages arising from defamation is not established. On the other hand, the expression of opinion or comment does not necessarily be limited to cases where a fact is directly expressed, but it is sufficient to suggest the existence of such fact in light of the preceding purport of the expression, even in indirect or round-up expression, and to cases where there is a possibility of infringing on a specific person’s social value or assessment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da6203, Jul. 28, 200; 2000Da38537, Feb. 27, 2004).

Meanwhile, in a case where certain expressive act of the press, such as a newspaper, becomes a problem in connection with defamation, whether the expression is a statement of fact or a simple expression of opinion, may be determined as a statement of fact that it is objectively proven, clear, and historical, and externally expressed externally, including the externally recognizable process or condition of others. However, such abstract criteria for judgment are not always clear. As such, it is not always clear in itself, in addition to the objective contents of the relevant article, the determination should be made based on the ordinary meaning of words used in the article, the overall flow of the article, and the method of linking the phrases, etc. under the premise that the general reader takes place with the general reader’s care. Moreover, the determination should be made based on the following factors: (a) more broad context or background in which the relevant article is published (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Da31356, Feb. 9, 199; 2002Da49040, Feb. 10, 2006).

In addition, even if an expression of opinion whose fact is not publicly known, if the form and content of an expression constitutes an insulting and definite personal attack, thereby infringing on the personality right, it may constitute defamation and separate types of tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da8480, Mar. 25, 2003; 2005Da65494, Apr. 9, 2009).

2) As to the article posted on the instant Twitter and the article written by Defendant 4

Defendant 1’s comments on the instant Twitter and Defendant 4’s comments on the instant Twitter were expressed as “pro-North Korea and North Korea-North Korea-North Korea-North Korean-North Korea-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korea-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-Korean-North Korean-North Korean-North Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korean-Korea.”

However, the so-called “North Korea North Korea” means a widely known fact that it means the person who newly feasible ideas of North Korea Kim Il, and in our reality where the two Koreas stand on behalf of South and North Korea and the National Security Act is in force, where a specific person is classified as a “North Korea North Korea”, he/she is deemed to be a anti-social force, and his/her social reputation and reputation are considerably damaged. Thus, the statement of “North Korea North Korea North Korea North Korea” is deemed to constitute a statement of specific facts that would sufficiently undermine the people’s social evaluation beyond the evaluation of the ideas of a specific person.

On the other hand, the ordinary meaning of the words "pro-North Korea" means "pro-North Korea or such tendency." Since the expression "pro-North Korea" means the inter-North Korea of a specific person evaluated on the basis of who acts and speaks in the group, etc., there is a lot of room to regard it as the expression "pro-North Korea" as the expression "pro-North Korea", from those who believe the official position of the Government of the Republic of Korea in the cases recognized as related to North Korea according to circumstances to the situation, they appear critical position on the policies of the Government of the Republic of Korea (e.g., those who do not deny the identity of the Republic of Korea, but at the same time defend North Korea's internal and external policy without denying the identity of the Republic of Korea, and at the same time, are widely used to the anti-Korean society that denies the identity and consistency of the Republic of Korea, it is not clear whether the expression "pro-North Korea" merely refers to any category of persons or ability, etc., and thus, if the expression "pro-North Korea" is used, it should be seen as a specific context or concrete.

Therefore, in the article of the instant Twitter, posting comments on the Twitter, and Defendant 4’s preparation, the meaning of pro-North Korea and pro-North Korea is equally used, and the Plaintiffs’ reputation is undermined by stating that “the Plaintiffs are affiliated with the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△, a pro-North Korea organization, and that “the Plaintiffs are in bad faith with △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ and make a major decision-making,” and not merely carrying out an opinion or evaluation on the Plaintiffs as a pro-North Korean tendency, but rather, by stating the specific fact that the Plaintiffs are aware of North Korea’s principal ideology and that they are strongly raised as persons with a belief or idea denying the identity of the Republic of Korea.

Furthermore, Defendant 1, through the instant Twitter bulletin, assessed Plaintiff 1 by using the expressions such as “Ilve,” which Plaintiff 1 was the representative of △△△△△△ Party,” “a person who does not have the right to make a determination,” “a person who is in accordance with the organization,” “the person who is in accordance with the organization,” and “pro-North Korea,” “pro-North Korea,” which was planned by the husband, Plaintiff 2, etc. solely based on the public’s ability to instigate. This constitutes an anti-human attack in light of the form and content of such expressive act, and thus, in this part, it is deemed that Plaintiff 1’s personal right was infringed.

3) As to the name of this case and articles prepared by Defendant 9

이 사건 성명의 내용을 종합하여 보면, ‘원고들은 ▽▽▽▽연합에 속해 있는데, ▽▽▽▽연합은 민주, 진보의 가면을 쓰고 있는 조직으로 김일성 초상화를 걸어놓고 묵념하는 세력, 조직원이라면 성폭력도 눈감아 주는 세력으로 △△△△당의 대표인 원고 1의 배후에 있고, ♤♤♤♤당을 이용해 국회를 장악한 후 자신들만의 정권을 세우려 한다’는 구체적 사실을 적시하였고, 피고 9 작성의 기사는 위와 같이 피고 2가 게시한 이 사건 성명 내용 중 위 부분을 그대로 인용보도하고 있다.

Therefore, the name of the instant case and the content of the article in Defendant 9’s news reports constitute tort by defamation, barring any special circumstance, inasmuch as it is sufficiently sufficient to lower the Plaintiffs’ social evaluation in terms of the following purport: (a) the Plaintiffs asserted that they are affiliated with the ▽▽▽▽▽▽”) and strongly suggesting that they are anti-social forces denying the identity of Korea.

4) As to each article written by Defendants 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10

Each of the above articles cited Defendant 1’s Twitter comments and Defendant 2’s name. In light of the overall flow of the article and the broad context and background of the article published, taking into account the social flow, etc. that is, the overall context and background of the article published, the following articles reveal that “Plaintiffs are affiliated with the △△△△△△△△ Party’s political party, and Plaintiff 2 acts as a person behind the organization’s political party, and Plaintiff 2 acts as a person who serves as a △△△△△△ Party’s political party, and Plaintiff 1 serves as a △△△△△△△△△ Party, and Plaintiff 1 acts as a Mambl, and the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ is acting as the △△△△ Party, and the said ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△△△ party was involved in the denial of the process of selecting candidates for the 1

On the other hand, considering the social background in which each of the above articles was published, the general readers, who are linked to the above articles, are not an existing organization with an organization, but at least a person who has a political relation with the past as a fact-finding or a fact-finding in which at least a person who was in the past was a person with a political relation. However, it is difficult to view the meaning of the pro-North Korea, which is expressed in each of the above articles, as meaning the pro-North Korea, as meaning the force that permits North Korea’s policies inside and outside the Republic of Korea, as meaning the force that permits North Korea’s policies.

다만 그 중 피고 10 작성의 기사는 ▽▽▽▽연합의 성격을 북한에 보다 더 우호적인 입장을 가지고, 이적단체로 인정된 ‘◎◎◎ ◎◎◎◎◎◎ ◎◎◎◎’와 가깝다는 관계자의 말을 인용하여 보도하면서 ▽▽▽▽연합이 국가의 존립·안전이나 자유민주적 기본질서를 위태롭게 하는 주2) 이적단체 에 가까움을 표현하고 있는바, 이는 결국 ▽▽▽▽연합에 소속되어 있다고 주장되는 원고들 또한 대한민국의 정체성과 정통성을 부정하는 반사회세력임을 암시하는 것으로 볼 수 있다.

5) As to the knives of Defendant 13

살피건대, 앞서 본 증거에 의하면, 위 칼럼은, 원고 1이 2012. 3. 23. 제19대 국회의원 선거과정에서 서울 ♠♠을 지역구 예비후보를 사퇴한 것을 소외 27이 2010. 6.에 있었던 지방선거에서 낙선한 것에 견주어서, ‘천안함 사건’, ‘6·25 전쟁’, ‘KAL기 폭파 사건’ 등의 역사적 사건에 관하여 대한민국 정부의 공식적 입장을 부정하고 북한의 주장에 동조하는 자들이 낙선하거나 후보직을 사퇴하는 것은 국가정신 또는 국가안보의 영령에 따른 것임을 핵심적인 내용으로 삼고 있는 사실, 피고 13은 원고 1이 2010. 8.경 ○○○○당 대표로서 라디오 방송에 출연하여 “6·25가 남침이냐, 북침이냐”는 질문에 대해 한 답변(“역사적인 논쟁들이 있습니다. (중략) 그 문제는 좀 더 치밀하게 생각해 나중에 다시 답을 드리겠습니다”)과 원고 2가 2003.경 방송 인터뷰에서 ‘KAL기 폭파 사건’에 관한 질문에 대한 답변(“KAL기 폭파범 소외 6은 완전히 가짜다. 이건 어디서 데려왔는지 모르지만 절대로 북한 공작원이 아니라고 우리는 단정 짓는다”)을 토대로 원고 1이 6·25 침략자를 규정하는 걸 거부하였다’, ‘원고들이 6·25 가해자 북한을 두둔하고 있다’는 결론을 내리고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 비추어 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 이 사건 칼럼은 그 전체적인 취지를 볼 때, 정치적 논쟁이 있는 역사적 사건에 관하여 북한의 주장에 동조하는 자들이 국민의 선택을 받지 못한 이유를 국가정신 또는 국가안보의 영령이라는 형이상학적 존재의 영향으로 설명하면서, 이러한 자들이 국가안보를 담당하는 주요 직책을 맡아서는 안된다는 의견을 우회적으로 표현하고 있고 점, ② ‘거부한다’는 표현은 그 대상이 사상, 의견 등 주관적이거나 추상적인 사항일 경우 그 진위를 확인하기가 어렵고, ‘두둔한다’는 표현은 특정인의 말과 행동 등을 바탕으로 이를 평가하는 표현인 점, ③ 원고들이 문제로 삼고 있는 위 각 표현은, 원고들의 과거 발언과 2010. 8.경 이후로 원고 1이 6·25 전쟁의 남침 여부에 관하여 명백히 답변하지 않고 있는 태도 등을 토대로 원고들의 입장을 분석하여 평가한 결과인 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 칼럼 중 원고들이 문제 삼고 있는 부분은 의견 또는 논평을 표명한 것에 불과하고, 원고들이 한 과거 발언 이외에는 어떠한 구체적인 사실의 존재도 암시하고 있지 않으므로, 이로써 원고들의 사회적 가치 내지 평가가 침해된다고 할 수 없다.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the reputation of the plaintiffs was damaged due to the above blade, and on different premise, the above assertion by the plaintiffs seeking compensation for damages and corrective reports against Defendants 13, Defendant C&B, and Defendant C&B on a different premise is without merit.

B. Whether the illegality is denied

1) The Defendants’ assertion (excluding Defendant 13, Defendant ACBB, Defendant CBBB, and Defendant CBC)

Even if the above Defendants’ comments and names of the Twitter and each article of this case damaged the reputation of the Plaintiffs, the contents were solely for the public interest as a matter of public interest, and the alleged facts were true, and even if they were not the truth of domestic affairs, the Defendants asserted that the illegality of defamation should be excluded since there were reasonable grounds to believe that each of the above contents was true.

2) Criteria for determination

Even if a certain expression impairs another person's reputation, if the expression is for the public interest and its purpose is solely for the public interest, there is no illegality if it is true or if there is a considerable reason to believe that it is true, and "the purpose is solely for the public interest" in this context means that the publicly alleged fact is related to the public interest and the perpetrator expresses the fact for the public interest. If the principal purpose or motive of the actor is for the public interest, if the principal purpose or motive of the actor is accompanied by another private interest purpose or motive for the public interest, it is nothing more than anything that is consistent with objective facts, and it is nothing more than anything that is the material fact that is consistent with objective facts when examining the purport of the whole contents (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do158 delivered on October 9, 198, etc.).

Meanwhile, in setting the limitation between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, the following should be considered: (a) whether the victim caused by the relevant expression is a public figure or a private figure; (b) whether the expression concerns a matter of public interest or a matter of purely private concern; and (c) whether the expression objectively concerns a matter of public interest or a matter of sociality, which the public should have known to the public; and (d) whether the expression contributes to the formation of public opinion or the debate on public opinion as to a matter of public nature or sociality; and (e) if the expression concerns a matter of private interest, the personal right, which is the protection of reputation, should be given priority over the freedom of press; (e) if the expression concerns a matter of public and social meaning, the evaluation should be differentiated; and (e) whether the victim raised the risk of defamation (see Constitutional Court Decision 97Hun-Ma265, Jun. 24, 199).

In addition, if the expression in question concerns the political ideology of a public figure, it is extremely impossible to accurately prove what ideology it has in light of the nature of a political ideology, so the political ideology of the public figure affects the future of the State. Therefore, the political ideology of the public figure should be thoroughly disclosed and verified, as long as there is any doubt or doubt thereon, and as long as it is probable, public debate should be permitted. Prior to the accurate argument or public judgment, it should not be obstructed in the name of the honorary protection of the public figure, and it is democratic to ensure that the raising of suspicions against it should not be obstructed in the name of the public figure, and that it can be taken in the competition process through the debate for pros and cons. It is also impossible to prove that the political ideology of a person or organization is considerably impossible, and that there is considerable reason to prove that it conforms with the public figure or subjective evaluation of it, and that there are 20 political assertions or material burden to use it should be determined in a way that it can be proven that it conforms with the aforementioned political ideology or material evidence, and that it can be assumed that it can be 20 or material evidence.

(iii) public interest;

Considering the comments, names, and articles of the instant Twitter, taking into account the social background in which the said comments and articles were written, the △△△△△△ Party’s suspicions of illegal election raised during the 19th National Assembly members election is revealed, and the above fact-finding○○ Party’s ideology and the process of selecting a candidate for a National Assembly member, which appears to be one of the members of the said ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△ party’s primary purpose and motive are deemed to serve

(iv)the authenticity and reasonableness;

A) As to each article of Defendant 3, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8

살피건대, 위 피고들이 작성한 각 기사의 주요 내용은 앞서 본 바와 같이 ‘원고들이 북한의 대내외 정책을 용인하는 종북성향을 지닌 ▽▽▽▽연합에 속해 있고, 위 ▽▽▽▽연합이 △△△△당을 장악하면서 제19대 국회의원선거 후보자 선정과정의 부정 등에 관여하는 있다는 내용인바, 앞서 본 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① ▽▽▽▽연합은 1990년대에 활동하던 재야민주 단체인 ‘민주주의민족통일전국연합’의 지역지부로 존재한 적이 있던 단체이고, 위 피고들이 의미한 ▽▽▽▽연합은 조직을 갖춘 현존하는 단체를 의미하는 것이 아니라 위 ▽▽▽▽연합 출신 인물을 구심점으로 하고 정치적 이념을 같이하는 정파 또는 계파를 의미하는 것으로 보이는 점, ② 소외 8 등이 2002. 1.경 소외 38, 소외 39, 소외 40과 함께 주체사상을 주된 사상으로 하는 ▣▣회를 결성하고 ○○○○당의 당원 현황 등을 수집하여 북한 공작원에 전달하였다는 이유 등으로 국가보안법위반 등으로 기소되어 유죄판결을 받은 사건( 이 법원 2006고합1365 , 서울고등법원 2007노929 , 대법원 2007도7257 , 이하 ‘▣▣회 사건’이라 주3) 한다) 에서 소외 8 등은 ‘○○○○당 내에 ▽▽▽▽연합 출신 활동가들이 존재하고, 소외 33, 소외 34, 소외 35 등이 위 ▽▽▽▽연합에 속한다’는 내용의 보고서를 작성한 사정이 인정된 점, ③ 2008. 1.경 ○○○○당에서 PD 주4) 계열 의 ★★★당이 분리되어 나올 당시, 소외 17(당시 ○○○○당 중앙연수원 원장)은 2008. 1. 1.경 ‘○○○○당 내 자주파(NL)의 종북주의에 근거한 패권주의가 당을 망쳐온 제일 큰 원인’이라고 발언하였고, 소외 3(당시 ○○○○당 당원이자 ▨▨대학교 교수)은 2008. 2. 4.경 ‘○○○○당 내에 주사파 또는 종북주의자들이 실존하고 온갖 편법으로 ○○○○당을 장악해 들어오고 있다’는 내용의 기고문을 인터넷신문 ‘프레시안’에 게재한 바가 있으며, 이 밖에 과거 ○○○○당의 소속이었고, 2012. 3.경에는 △△△△당의 공동대표였던 소외 1은 ‘▽▽▽▽연합으로 지칭되는 당권파가 주목이 됐던 것은 그만큼 △△△△당 내 힘을 가진 세력이라는 점에서 주목된 것’이라고 하여 ▽▽▽▽연합을 언급한 바가 있는 점 등을 종합적으로 고려하면, 위 피고들 작성의 각 기사 내용이 진실한 사실이라고 보기는 어려우나 적어도 원고들이 북한의 대내외 정책을 용인하는 정파 또는 계파인 ▽▽▽▽연합의 영향을 받고 위 ▽▽▽▽연합이 제19대 국회의원 선거의 후보자 선정 과정에 상당히 개입한 것이 진실이라고 믿을만한 상당한 이유가 있었다고 봄이 상당하다.

B) As to the article posted and name of the instant Twitter, and each article written by Defendant 4, Defendant 9, and Defendant 10

살피건대, 위 피고들은 앞서 본 바와 같이 원고들을 종북·주사파로 단정 짓거나(이 사건 트위터 게시글, 피고 4 작성의 기사), 민주, 진보의 가면을 쓰고 있는 조직으로 김일성 초상화를 걸어놓고 묵념하는 세력 등으로 묘사하여, 원고들이 주체사상을 신봉하고 대한민국의 정체성을 부정하는 세력임을 강하게 암시하거나(이 사건 성명, 피고 9 작성의 기사) 또는 국가보안법상 처벌대상이 되는 이적단체로서의 ▽▽▽▽연합의 구성원임을 강하게 암시하고(피고 10 작성의 기사) 있는바, 위 가)항에서 인정된 사정을 감안하더라도, ① 원고 1은 제18대 국회의원으로 활동하였을 뿐만 아니라 제19대 국회의원 선거에서 13명이 지역 또는 비례대표 의원으로 당선된 △△△△당의 대표이고, 원고 2 또한 정치인은 아니나 변호사로서 상당한 기간 공개적으로 사회활동을 해 온 사람이므로, 그들의 정치·사회적 이념이나 사상에 대해서는 그동안의 행적을 통해 어느 정도 검증이 이루어진 상태이고, 특히 남북분단의 현실에서 원고들이 국가보안법위반 등으로 수사를 받거나 기소되었다는 자료도 없으므로, 그에 불구하고 원고들이 북한의 주체사상을 신봉하고 대한민국의 정체성을 부정하는 신념이나 사상을 가지고 있다는 취지의 글이나 기사 또는 성명을 작성·발표하기 위해서는 단순한 의혹 수준을 넘어 보다 구체적이고 뚜렷한 정황사실을 제시할 필요가 있는 점, ② 위 피고들의 글, 기사 및 성명에서는 원고들의 과거 발언{‘6·25 전쟁에 관한 역사적인 논쟁들이 있습니다. (중략) 그 문제는 좀 더 치밀하게 생각해 나중에 다시 답을 드리겠습니다’(원고 1), ‘KAL기 폭파범 소외 6은 완전히 가짜다. 이건 어디서 데려왔는지 모르지만 절대로 북한 공작원이 아니라고 우리는 단정 짓는다’(원고 2) 등}, PD 계열 인물의 발언{‘○○○○당 내에 주사파 또는 종북주의자들이 실존하고 온갖 편법으로 ○○○○당을 장악해 들어오고 있다’, ‘김일성 신년사를 듣고 눈물을 흘리고 김일성과 김정일 초상화 앞에서 묵념을 하고 회의를 하고, 실제 그런 사람들이 존재합니다’(소외 3) 등}, 앞서 본 ‘▣▣회 사건’의 판결문에 ○○○○당 내에 존재하는 ▽▽▽▽연합에 관한 언급이 존재한다는 점 등의 정황을 근거로 원고들이 북한의 주체사상을 신봉하고 대한민국의 정체성을 부정하는 신념이나 사상 등을 가지고 있다는 취지를 담고 있으나, 이러한 정황만으로는 △△△△당의 대표자인 원고 1이나 그 남편인 원고 2 또한 주사파에 해당한다고 연결 지을 수 없고, 오히려 ▣▣회 사건에서 소외 8 등이 작성한 문건에 ○○○○당 내에 존재하는 ‘▽▽▽▽연합’에 관한 내용이 있기는 하지만 원고들에 관한 언급은 전혀 없었으며, PD 계열 인물의 발언에서도 주사파 등을 원고들과 연관 지어 발언한 경우는 찾아보기 어렵고, 소외 1, 소외 3 등은 원고들이 기존의 ▽▽▽▽연합과 다른 행보를 보였으며, 북한에 대해 편향적인 시각을 드러낸 바가 있으나 종북·주사파로는 볼 수 없다고 발언하기도 한 사정 등을 엿볼 수 있는 점 등을 종합적으로 고려하면, 위 피고들이 게시·보도한 위와 같은 내용의 게시글, 성명 및 기사가 진실이라거나 또는 진실이라고 믿은 데에 상당한 이유가 있었다고 보기 어렵다.

4. Details and scope of tort liability

(a) Compensation for losses;

Since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiffs suffered from mental suffering due to the harm of honor caused by the publication of the Twitter bulletin and name of the plaintiffs, the news reports of the article of the article of the article of the article of the defendant 4, the defendant 9, and the defendant 10, the defendant 1, the defendant 2, and the defendant 4, and the defendant New Daily as to the article of the defendant 9, the defendant 10, and the defendant Digital Daily as to the article of the defendant 10 as to the article of the defendant 10 prepared, the defendant 10, and the defendant Digital Daily are obligated to bring the above damage to the plaintiffs as joint tortfeasor as to the article of the article of the defendant 10 prepared.

Furthermore, with regard to the amount of consolation money, the above facts are considered as follows: (a) health team; (b) the status and career of the plaintiffs; (c) the size and influence of the defendants; (d) the contents and background of each of the above articles and articles; and (e) the publication and report were made during the 19th National Assembly members election period; and (e) Plaintiff 1’s personality rights were infringed upon by the Twitter bulletin; and (d) circumstances were observed that may be considered in the posting and reporting process of each of the above articles, such as where the news is recognized as public interests; and (e) the correction report is accepted as seen thereafter; and (e) other circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case are considered, the above amount to be compensated by the defendants is KRW 15 million; (d) Defendant 2 is KRW 8 million; (e) Defendant 4, Defendant New Daily; and (e) Defendant Chosun’s 400,000 won; (e) Defendant Chosun’s 100,000 won and Defendant Digital’s 1000,00.

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay 4 million won per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 27, 2012 to May 15, 2013, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, with respect to each of the above amounts as to KRW 15 million per annum, KRW 4 million per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

(b) Disposition appropriate for restoring honor;

1) The occurrence of the duty to make a corrective report by Defendant New Daily, Defendant Digital Daily, and Defendant Digital Daily.

Among the articles of Defendant 4, Defendant 9, and Defendant 10, the part that the Plaintiffs were affiliated with a pro-North Korea or pro-North Korea or a pro-North Korea organization or a pro-North Korea organization was not true is as seen earlier. Considering the various circumstances indicated in the instant case, ordering the Defendants to compensate for money is insufficient to restore the reputation infringed upon the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to seek the publication of a correction report as an appropriate disposition for restoring honor pursuant to Article 764 of the Civil Act.

(ii) the contents and method of the corrective report;

With respect to the contents, size, method of publication, etc. of a correction report to be published by Defendant New Daily, Defendant Digital Daily, and Defendant Chosun Shipbuilding, the contents, quantity, method of expression, location of publication, and other various circumstances indicated in the arguments regarding the contents, size, etc. of the correction report to be published by Defendant New Daily, Defendant 4, Defendant 9, and Defendant 10, among the articles, the contents, amount, and amount of the part that the Plaintiffs were affiliated with the ▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽▽△△△ Group as a pro-North Korea or a pro-North Korean organization or as a pro-North Korean organization, within seven days from the date the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive, as shown in attached Form 1, the corresponding part of the correction report as indicated in attached Form 4 that the Plaintiffs sought, as described in attached Form 5, shall be published as indicated in attached Form 3, and the size and active number of letters as indicated in the items, main sentence, and the amount of indirect compulsory performance

Therefore, the plaintiffs' request for corrective report is justified within the above recognition scope.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the plaintiffs against the defendants 1, 2, 4, 19, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, and 19, and 199, shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition. Each claim against the above defendants and each claim against the remaining defendants against the above defendants shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of any ground, and it is so decided as per Disposition (see the summary of the results of the Decision 19 (see the summary of the decision).

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Jeon Ho-ho (Presiding Judge) Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)

1) In the election of the 19th National Assembly members, the candidate registration between the National Election Commission was made from March 22, 2012, and the official election campaign was made from the 29th of the same month.

2) Article 7(1) of the National Security Act provides that an anti-government organization or a member thereof or a person who is subject to its order, with the knowledge of fact that it may endanger the existence and security of the State or democratic fundamental order, refers to an organization aimed at praiseing, encouraging, promoting, or assisting in, the activities of an anti-government organization or a member thereof or a person who is subject to its order,

주3) 소외 8이 주체사상을 받아들이고 남한 내에서 북한 주도의 통일사업을 이루기 위하여 1998. 1.경 국내에 잠입한 후 2002. 1.경 소외 39, 소외 38, 소외 40 등과 ‘▣▣회’를 결성하였고, 그 무렵부터 2006. 10.경까지 ○○○○당 당원 현황, 지도부 및 당직자의 구체적 성향 등 국가기밀을 탐지·수집하고 이를 북한공작원에게 전달하였다는 이유로 기소되어, 제1심에서는 ‘▣▣회’ 결성을 통한 이적단체 구성·가입의 점 등에 무죄가 선고되었으나, 일부 공소사실에 대해 유죄가 인정되어 소외 8 등에게 징역형 및 자격정지형이 선고되었다. 피고인들과 검사의 항소에 의하여 제기된 항소심에서는 피고인들의 항소가 일부 받아들여져 일부 공소사실에 대해 추가로 무죄가 선고되었고, 이에 유죄 부분에 대해 제1심에서 선고된 징역형과 자격정지형의 감형이 이루어졌으며, 그 후 검사와 피고인들이 제기한 상고가 기각되어, 최종적으로 소외 8에 대해 징역 7년 및 자격정지 7년의 형이 확정되었다.

4) PD department: The 1980s of socialist society-philosophical tradition began in the Republic of Korea. It also shows an equal strike. Unlike the national piracy (NL) series that form a unified organization in accordance with a single guidance ideology, it is not a single static and organized independently and systematically divided quantity. In addition, it is against the national piracy, which grasps national contradictions as the major contradiction in the Korean society, and the democracy of the public has been identified as a contradiction rather than the national contradiction. From the point of view of the rank movement, it has been criticized for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, focusing on labor movement, and it has been in conflict with the 20th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the 196th anniversary of the Republic of Korea.