1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above part is revoked.

1. As to this part of the basic facts, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal in the attached Form 3 “Attachment 4” of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff attended the workshop held to hold the Korea Environment Policy and Evaluation Institute (hereinafter “instant workshop”) in each of the instant articles, and went out three times as “the YY YY YY YY YY YY YYY ACT.” Although the Plaintiff reported the content of the instant report (hereinafter “the content of the instant report”), the Plaintiff did not have made the said statement.

The defendant has damaged the plaintiff's reputation by making a false report as above. The defendant shall make a corrective report as shown in the attached Table 1, and the plaintiff shall be liable to pay consolation money of KRW 50,000,000 to the plaintiff and delay damages.

3. Determination as to the request for a corrective report

A. The authenticity of the relevant legal doctrine is recognized when the material part of a press report is consistent with objective facts when examining the purport of the entire content of the report, and even if there is a little difference or somewhat exaggerated expression in the detailed contents, it shall be deemed that the truth of the report is recognized if, in the process of simply creating complicated facts in a simple manner, the head of a somewhat investigative division in the process of compressing, emphasizing, or emphasizing a certain specific fact in order to attract public interest, if the material part of the report is consistent with the truth in light of the overall context.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da2275 Decided September 6, 2007). Meanwhile, in setting the limitation between the freedom of press and the protection of reputation, a purely private person is whether the victim whose honor is damaged by the relevant expression is a public figure or a private figure, or whether the expression concerns a public concern.