207 Doz. 24153 Correction and Counterclaim

Co., Ltd. 000

Seoul Jongno-gu

Representative Director 000

Law Firm Jae, Attorney Yu Jae-man, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

000000

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul

President of the Representative 000

Attorney Go Chang-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Gyeong-ro, Attorney Yang So-ra, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

April 17, 2008

May 8, 2008

1. The defendant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the original decision, indicated on the screen "the first head of the program to bring the consumer accusation of 000 PD" in the size of the letter such as the ordinary caption program, and indicated on the screen "the title of "the correction and counterargument" in which the correction and counterargument report is continuously displayed, and indicated on the screen as a caption that the contents of the correction and counterargument report can be sufficiently recognizable by viewers, and let the proceedings read at the same speed as the progress of the original program.

2. If the Defendant fails to comply with Paragraph 1, it shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 30,00,000 per share from the day following the expiration date of the above period until the completion date of the performance.

3. The plaintiff's remaining main claims and other conjunctive claims are dismissed.

4. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The primary claim: The defendant's first broadcasting after receiving the service of the judgment.

“The first head of the program, the normal program caption, and the size of the

The title of "the title" shall continue to be indicated, and the following page shall be viewed by the request for a corrective report in attached Form 2.

They display a caption to the extent that they can sufficiently recognize the content thereof, and have the conductor do so.

be read at the same speed as the progress of the original program. The Defendant’s failure to comply with it.

In the case of the plaintiff, the number of offenses to the plaintiff shall be 1,000,000 won per time.

Preliminary Claim: The Defendant’s first broadcasting after receiving the service of the judgment

“In the first head of the program, the size of the letter, such as a normal program caption,” and “in the top of the screen”

The title "" continues to be indicated, and the following page 3 requests for a counterargument report shall be viewed on the screen:

They display a caption to the extent that they can sufficiently recognize the content thereof, and have the conductor do so.

be read at the same speed as the progress of the original program. The Defendant’s failure to comply with it.

In the case of the plaintiff, the number of offenses to the plaintiff shall be 1,000,000 won per time.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff is a corporation that manufactures and sells yellow cosmetics. The Defendant is a broadcasting business entity that aims at broadcasting business, cultural service business, etc.

B. On October 22, 2007, the Defendant’s broadcast time and content of the Defendant’s broadcast report, and on October 22, 2007: “Around 000, the Defendant reported the broadcast of the title “(i) heavy metal detection in yellow factoring.” On December 22, 200, the Defendant reported at the same program at around 00, the content of the broadcast report at around 00.2).

The defendant reported (hereinafter referred to as "the report of this case") a broadcast of the same contents as the statement in the attached broadcast No. 4, and its main contents are as follows. (A) The part related to the detection of heavy metals:

On May 31, 2007, the defendant requested the Korea Basic Science Support Institute to inspect heavy metal for six companies' sulfur packaging products. According to the result of the inspection, all six companies' products exceeded 0pm of 20.0pm of 'general cosmetics standards' under the relevant laws and regulations, and four companies' products exceeded 0pm of 'general cosmetics standards'.

On August 29, 2007, the Defendant again requested the Korea Institute of Science and Technology to inspect metals from among three company's yellow factoring products. According to the result of the inspection, both in the case of payment exceed 0 pm of 20.0 pm, which is a general cosmetic standard, and in the case of non-litigation, two products exceed 0 pm, which is a general cosmetic standard.

B) Parts related to heavy metal absorption

In order to find out the possibility of the absorption of heavy metal contained in the Yellow Factors, the Defendant conducted an absorption test of heavy metal by way of cutting down the yellow factoring two times a day and 15 minutes a day against the rats for three weeks. According to the result of the experiment, the number of heavy metal value, such as lead and hydrogen, in blood, has increased.

C) Parts related to the transportation of metal scrap

The Defendant’s response to only two of the products of one company to 3 companies’ yellow factoring and natural yellow sand. This is because, in the natural yellow sand, a metal scrap is not included. This is because, in the case of a yellow factoring product reactioned to 3 companies’ yellow sand, a metal scrap (all) can be seen as used in the process of pulverization, and the metal scrap was discharged. The part related to the winning of the application for provisional injunction against the broadcast program on October 5, 2007, which was partly favorable by the court. However, it is not true that the company of the sulfur factoring production, which was partly favorable by the court, applied for the injunction against the broadcast program on October 5, 2007.

C. On October 23, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a correction and counterargument report with the Press Arbitration Commission on the ground that the content related to the portion that heavy metals were detected in the sulfur factoring products, ② heavy metals could be absorbed into the sulfur products, ③ the portion that metal scrap was discharged into the sulfur products in the process of yellow pulverization, ④ the portion that the sulfur factoring manufacturer did not have been rendered a partial winning judgment in the case of a provisional injunction against broadcast, ④ the Press Arbitration Commission on November 9, 2007. 2) The Defendant filed a complaint against the Defendant for a correction and counterargument report with the Press Arbitration Commission on the following grounds: KS - 1TV broadcasting at 10 p.m. 10 p.m. from the date of the determination of the “Attachment 5 Press Arbitration Commission Report”, and the Defendant criticized the Plaintiff’s broadcast at 0 pulon rate of 10 p.m. 20 p.m. 20 p.m. screen on the screen, and criticized the Defendant’s statement at 00.

4) On November 15, 2007, the Defendant filed an objection against the said decision by the Press Arbitration Commission.

D. Occurrence of damage to the plaintiff

The defendant's report of this case severely damaged the plaintiff's trust and honor, and the sales have decreased.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 19, 21, 22, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion about heavy metal detection reports

The plaintiff's sulfur products are sold in the form of powder and distributed to the skin in the form of powder mixed with water and water 1: 1. Thus, when examining the product's heavy metal content, the "General Cosmetics Criteria" should be applied to the product's product. If the "General Cosmetics Criteria" is applied to the product, the product's content should be examined in the form of Clim which is the finished product immediately before being distributed to the skin. However, without any grounds, the defendant reported that heavy metal was detected in excess of the standards after examining the sulfur factoring product itself, which is the end of powder, by applying the "General Cosmetics Standards" to the product itself.

Therefore, the defendant should first make a corrective report that is identical to the part of the corrective report in attached Form 2 (1), and first make a counterargument report that is identical to the part of the demand for a counterargument report in attached Form 3 (1).

2) Whether this part of the report constitutes a factual assertion is a factual assertion as provided in the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Press Arbitration") since this part of the report was reported by reporting and reporting the factual assertion that the payment exceeding 'general cosmetic standards' and the detection of corruption in the yellow factoring products sold in the market.

In this regard, the Defendant asserts that this part of the report is merely an expression of opinion to the effect that the 'general cosmetic standards' should be applied to the heavy metal standards of sulfur packaging products. However, in light of the purport of the entire contents of the report, since the material part of the report was detected of heavy metals exceeding the standards of sulfur packaging products, the above assertion is without merit.

3) Whether this part of the report is false or false

The statement in Gap 3, 14, 15, 20, and Eul 7 alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant applied "general cosmetics standards" without any grounds when examining the heavy metal content of the sulfur packaging products itself, or that the detection of "general cosmetics standards" is not true in the sulfur packaging products itself.

4) Sub-decisions

Therefore, since this part of the report cannot be seen as false, the primary claim for a corrective report is without merit. However, since the plaintiff suffered damages due to the factual assertion, the preliminary claim for a counterargument report is justified.

B. Plaintiff’s assertion on heavy metal absorption 1)

In order to find out the possibility of absorption of heavy metals contained in yellow factoring, the Defendant reported to the effect that there was a fundamental problem in the experiment itself as not only only because the absorption rate of heavy metals was considerably high compared to those of the persons, but also because the rats used in the experiment was contaminated by heavy metals, but also there was a serious pollution in heavy metals. However, the Defendant reported to the effect that heavy metals can be absorbed through the skin. Accordingly, the Defendant should make a correction report identical to (1) of the corrective matters in the attached Form 2 request for a corrective report. 2) Whether this part of the report is false or not.

C. In light of the overall context of this part of the report, the main part of the report is likely to absorb heavy metals through the skin, and it is difficult to recognize that there is no possibility that heavy metals might be absorption through the skin or the skin or that there is no possibility that they might be absorption through the skin or that there is no possibility that they might be absorption through the skin or that there is no possibility that they might be absorption through the skin or that there is no possibility that they might be absorption through the skin (including each number). Therefore, it is difficult to view the aforementioned report as a false report.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a possibility that heavy metals, a major part of this part of the report, might be absorbed through the skin. Therefore, the request for a corrective statement is without merit.

C. Parts 1 related to the Plaintiff’s assertion that metal scrap flow 1) The substance from which the Plaintiff’s claim was detected in the sulfur factoring dust is not a metal scrap flown in the process of sulfur crushing, but a chemical scrap contained in the sulfur itself. The chemical scrap is a material of cosmetics listed in the International Cosmetics Raw Materials Center (ICD). Nevertheless, the Defendant reported to the effect that the metal scrap, used in the process of crushinging sulfur, which is not contained in the natural sulfur contained in the sulfur contained in the sulfur contained in the raw material, was flown in the process of manufacturing sulfur, and this could cause perpetuous infection. Accordingly, the Defendant should first make a correction report such as the correction report in attached Form 2, and make a preliminary counterargument report in attached Form 3 demand for a counterargument report as to whether this part of the report is false or not.

The visible ingredients used in the process of pulverization include the fact that it is the low-carbon down net, the fact that the low-carbon down net does not response to the self-defluence, the fact that the shot (Fe3O4) includes the self-defluence in accordance with the place of gathering natural sulfur sand, and the fact that it is the raw materials of cosmetics listed in the International Cosmetics Materials Center (ICD) (ICD).

According to the above facts of recognition, it can be seen that the materials refluent to sulphy in sulfur sulphy, which were refluent in the process of pulverization, were fluent steel, including fe3O4 (Fe3O4) contained in yellow soil, which were flown in the process of pulverization ("broadcasting").

Therefore, since this part of the report is considered to be false, the primary claim for the corrective report is reasonable.

D. The plaintiff's assertion concerning the winning of the provisional disposition 1)

On October 5, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a motion against the Defendant to prohibit broadcasting as to the program, and received a partial favorable judgment from the court. Nevertheless, the Defendant reported to the effect that it is denied. Therefore, the Defendant should first make a reply to the said corrective report as stated in the attached Form 2’s request for a corrective report, ③ the same corrective report as stated in the attached Form 2’s request for a corrective report, and ③ the same counterargument report as stated in attached Form 3.

2) Whether this part of the report is false or false

The plaintiff filed a provisional disposition against the defendant on October 5, 2007 by the Seoul Southern District Court 2007Kahap2853 and the defendant applied for a provisional disposition on the prohibition of broadcasting in Seoul Southern District Court 2007Kahap2853 on October 5, 2007. The decision was rendered on October 22, 2007 that "the defendant shall not broadcast the contents prohibited in the attached broadcast No. 6 prohibition list" in the consumer complaint of 00 PD around October 5, 200.

Therefore, since this part of the report is about false facts, the primary claim for the corrective report is reasonable.

3. Details and method of the correction and counterargument report;

In full view of the health stand, the time period during which the instant report was broadcasted, the method and content of the expression, and all other circumstances shown in the instant argument, with respect to the size, content and method of the correction and counterargument report, the Defendant, upon receiving the said judgment, has determined that “The first head of the program’s accusation against the consumer in 000, the Defendant continues to indicate “the title of the correction and counterargument report” on the screen page with the size of characters such as the ordinary caption, and then, it is reasonable to allow the viewers to broadcast the report in a caption to the extent that the contents of the correction and counterargument report (the content of the correction or counterargument report as seen above) can be sufficiently recognizable, by displaying the title of “the correction and counterargument report” on the screen on the screen as a way that the viewers read at the same speed as the original program’s progress.

4. Considering the various circumstances revealed in the argument of this case by indirect compulsory performance, it is probable that the Defendant would not perform the above duty to act within a specified period even after this judgment was delivered, and the need for prompt correction and counter-report is recognized in light of the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the instant report. Therefore, if the Defendant fails to perform the above obligation within the above period, it is reasonable to have the Plaintiff pay to the Plaintiff money calculated at the rate of KRW 30,000,000 per week from the day following the expiration date of the above period until the completion date of the performance.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's main claim and the conjunctive claim of this case are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kim Sung-sung

Judge Lee Jong-chul

Judges Cha fixed-term0