1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the party is a company that officially sells halog vehicles, which are imported vehicles, and engages in the business of repairing and maintaining the said vehicles, and the defendant is a press company that issues online newspaper Asia (htp://www. ww. Dood.co.c.r/).

B. The background and coverage 1) B of the news report: (a) on December 2014, 2014, the Plaintiff’s point of origin for the halog CDI 2.0 TPP vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

(B) purchase of the instant vehicle during September 2015, October 2015, and December 2015, the symptoms that do not bind the instant vehicle D (hereinafter referred to as “instant symptoms”).

2) B found the symptoms of this case and requested the halogen Korea Consumer Support Center to deliver them and take measures such as repair.

The person in charge of the above customer support center announced B that B had talked about the test vehicle at the Changwon Shalogen Service Center and received inspection.

B, on December 7, 2015, the instant vehicle was put into the Changwon halogen Service Center, and the operator of the said Service Center inspected the instant vehicle, but did not find the cause for the instant symptoms.

On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that, without any reservation, B intended to enter the instant vehicle into the service center on December 7, 2015, and therefore, if a staff member in charge of the service center enters the instant vehicle into the pre-contract, it is impossible to repair the previous vehicle due to the pre-contract, so that B could not be repaired on the day due to the pre-contract, and that B could only be seen by connecting the diagnosis machine to the instant vehicle, and that B did not immediately shipped the instant vehicle without requesting the repair of the instant vehicle, even though the person in charge had connected the diagnosis machine to the instant vehicle, there was no symptoms.

However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion, and instead, in full view of the respective descriptions of Nos. 1 and 3 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, B.