1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff posted a notice on the Internet website “B” with the title “C” as “D’s Internet address” (hereinafter “instant notice”).

B. On April 6, 2018, the Korea Communications Standards Commission established under the Defendant’s Korea Communications Commission issued a request to delete the instant notice to B Co., Ltd., a provider of information and communications services (hereinafter “instant request for correction”) on the ground that the instant notice constitutes “a content that substantially distorted historical facts related to the 5.18 Democratization Movement and content that promotes prejudice against the relevant group or individual,” based on Article 6 subparag. 5 and subparag. 3(f) of the Information and Communications Network Deliberation Regulations.

C. B, on April 9, 2018, deleted the instant notice in accordance with the instant request for correction. D.

Accordingly, on April 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the instant corrective order with the Korea Communications Standards Commission, but the Korea Communications Standards Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on April 20, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4, 8, 9, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant statutes are as shown in attached Form 2;

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a content that substantially distort historical facts of the instant notice.

Although it does not constitute a content that encourages prejudice on Gwangju metropolitan area, etc. without reasonable grounds, the act of the Korea Communications Commission to demand the deletion of the notice of this case on the ground of Article 6 subparag. 5 and subparag. 3(f) of the Regulations on Deliberation on Information and Communications Network constitutes an illegal administrative disposition that abused or deviates from discretionary power, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s honor is damaged or the Plaintiff suffered serious mental distress. Thus, the Defendant is liable for damages caused by the tort against the Plaintiff.