beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. (1) The Plaintiff is a newspaper company that publishes a newspaper related to the incompetence of “legal news newspaper,” and Defendant A is a person who operates the Internet media related to the incompetence of “C,” and Defendant B is a reporter of “C.”
(2) On October 7, 2014, Defendant A rendered a sentence of a fine of KRW 2 million with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da1280, Oct. 7, 2014, and was sentenced on November 26, 2014 to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 3 million with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da17109, Nov. 26, 2014. On September 4, 2013, the previous Defendant A received a judgment that the Plaintiff’s reputation through the above “C” articles, thereby impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation.
B. A dispute regarding the appointment of president of the D University and a report related to the law newspaper (1) is a university established and operated by the E branch of the D University. On May 2, 2015, the D branch of the D branch of the D branch of the E branch of the E branch of the University appointed F G as a new president. In that process, since December 2014, 2014, H professors, etc., who were the faculty’s president, were infinites and were infinites and were infinites and f’s thesis table, etc., and there was a long conflict between professors, students, and the same.
(2) The Legal Ethics Review published the F’s argument, as it is, that “The Research Ethics Promotion Committee that raised suspicions on the essay table,” through an interview with the F president, immediately after the F was appointed as the president. In the case of the Chairperson, the F’s opinion that “The Research Ethics Promotion Committee that issued suspicions on the essay table was unreasonable.” The Chairperson announced the results different from the results of the examination, and made the request for disciplinary action, which is the president’s authority, as the president’s request for disciplinary action, as the president’s authority, is against the president.”