Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Dong-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

UNNN Co., Ltd. and 3 others (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Go Won-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 23, 2008

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Gahap64571 Decided May 18, 2007

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff 5,000,000 won per annum for defendant NNNN Co., Ltd., defendant ES Communications, 3,000,000 won for each communication following the defendant Co., Ltd., and 1,000,000 won for defendant ENN Korea Co., Ltd., and 5% per annum for each of the above amounts from September 27, 2005 to July 2, 2008, and 20% per annum for each of the above amounts from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal against the defendants and the defendants' appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 50 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the last delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of additional payment shall be revoked. The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 70 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the last copy of the complaint is served to the day of full payment.

The Defendants: The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants falling under the above revocation part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 2, 15, 17, 32, Eul evidence 1 and 6, Gap evidence 12-1 and 12-6, Gap evidence 20, Eul evidence 1 and 21-1 and 4, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 4-1 and 4, Eul evidence 5 and 5-7, Eul evidence 1, 4, 6, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 5 and 8, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 1, 6, 8, 9, and non-party 2's testimony in the first instance trial.

A. The plaintiff, the deceased non-party 1's teaching system, and the non-party 1's suicide

(1) The plaintiff was born in 1976 and graduated from the Seoul ○ High School on February 1994, and worked in the △△ Book Co., Ltd. from September 193 to December 12, 1995. He completed military service from September 1997 to December 1999. From March 2, 2000 to May 2005, the plaintiff was enrolled in the management support team in the △△△△ University's night management department.

(2) On April 17, 2004, the Plaintiff requested Nonparty 1 to teach Nonparty 1 for 1 year with the introduction of her friendship around April 2005, and around April 2005, the Plaintiff demanded that her be hedging. In that process, Nonparty 1’s mother of Nonparty 1 abused and thrown away Nonparty 1, who is pregnant by the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s her mother would abuse and thrown away Nonparty 1, who was pregnant, and threatened the Plaintiff’s her company and her school life at three times. Upon the Plaintiff’s report, the Plaintiff was used for the police investigation, and was subject to medical treatment at the hospital.

(3) On April 16, 2005, Nonparty 1, at his own place of residence, committed suicide, committed several suicides with the Plaintiff, Nonparty 3, and the company accompanying the Plaintiff, etc., and was found by the Plaintiff, Nonparty 3, etc. on the 22th of the same month.

(4) At around 01:00 on April 24, 2005, the Plaintiff drafted a letter to the effect that “I will only establish a school and company” at the request of Nonparty 3, etc. at the funeral of the Deceased.

B. Publication of Nonparty 3’s deceased’s remains, etc.

(1) On May 5, 2005, Nonparty 3 posted on Nonparty 1’s U.S. Home (http:/www. C.cyword.com/toma.117, and Nonparty 1’s website’s website) the title “for the last one year period” (the author appears to be the decedent of the deceased; hereinafter the same shall apply). The content of the notice is as follows.

(A) On April 17, 2004, the Magdong was married to Nonparty 1 on the basis of the introduction of her friendship. On August 2004, Nonparty 1 promised to marry, demanded the marriage relationship with Nonparty 1, and had Nonparty 1 live together with her mother at the home where her mother was living together with her mother, and had Nonparty 1 live together with her husband at her home where her mother was her home. However, as Nonparty 1 was pregnant, and her natural heritage was born, Nonparty 1 neglected Nonparty 1’s attitude of “Magdong,” and the number of times she only neglected Nonparty 1.

(B) Around March 2005, Nonparty 1, who was deprived of the attitude of Gimmang, demanded the Hague flag, but he changed his mind to keep the relationship with the intent of continuing to maintain the relationship by asking for a straw and delivering it well in the future. However, upon Nonparty 1’s second pregnancy, Nonparty 1 demanded unilaterally hedging and the contact was cut down.

(C) Nonparty 1 found her at night university that he or she was going to talk with Nonparty 1, while Nonparty 1 had a dispute with Nonparty 1 in his or her own car, and Nonparty 1 was pushed Nonparty 1 in his or her car while Nonparty 1 had a dispute with Nonparty 1. During that process, Nonparty 1’s oral bending.

(D) On April 12, 2005, Non-party 3 transferred the Ginnam on the fact that he was pregnant by Non-party 1, but he was able to see that “Gindong” only satisfe satfe satfe satfe satfe sate satfe sate sate satfe sate sate. satfe only satfe sate satfe sate satfe sate satfe sat. satfe sate sat satfe satfe sat sate satfes at the police station but the police who was investigated, but Non-party 3 also refused to undergo hospital treatment at the time of this case.

(E) On April 16, 2005, Nonparty 1 left a note in the future, including Nonparty 3, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff Company, and died by taking excessive exemption from the room in which he was married. Since six days thereafter, Nonparty 1 was discovered by the Plaintiff and Nonparty 3.

(2) Nonparty 3 inserted in the instant U.S. Homebook a letter stating that “Glag, Ginnam, written to the effect that he left school and company at the funeral hall of his father.” Meanwhile, Nonparty 3 asserted “to visit Non-party 1’s upper home so as to have many sections complied with it.” and Nonparty 1’s death widely spread,” on the Internet bulletin of the Brynish University, which was accompanying the Plaintiff.

(3) Since then, the number of visitors to the nives of the above non-party 1 was rapidly increased (as of May 11, 2005, 11, 23:00, 114:00 Nivers had visited the nives of 1,00, and on the bulletin board, there was an explosive notice on the non-party 1’s nives of laver, and there was a letter expressing the personal information, such as the name and telephone number of the school and the company. Among them, there was a letter expressing the above nives of nives of nives of nives of nives of lives of lives of lives of lives of lives of lives of 14,000.

C. Status and business contents of the Defendants

(1) The Defendants are value-added telecommunications business operators under the Telecommunications Business Act and the providers of information and communications services under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “NNN”). The Defendants are the Internet 1) portal site “Nt” (www.naver.com), Defendant Company: (a) Internet portal site “www.umt”; (b) Defendant EM Communications Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S Communications”) provides Internet portal site “Nt.com” and “Nt.N.com” on the Internet community site; and (c) Defendant Nagoya Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “YN Korea”) operate the Internet portal site “www (www.O.M.C.); and (d) Internet news users, etc.; and (d) Internet news search service, etc. (hereinafter “Internet news users”); and (e) Internet mobile site “Internet news users, etc.,” and (e) Internet mobile network site “Internet news users, etc.”).

(2) The Defendants are providing the following services on their Internet portal sites:

(A) The Defendants, on their own Internet portal sites, provided news articles from newspapers, news agencies, online newspapers, etc. with or without charge, with the news articles posted at a fee and free of charge, thereby providing the service for the perusal of the NAP.

(B) The Defendants are providing services to search information resources on the Barnet when entering search words into the search box on the search site.

(C) The Defendant’s Internet portal site provides community services, such as carpets, Blographs, and Pho homep. However, the members of the Internet portal site voluntarily opened the Internet portal site in accordance with the form in which the Internet portal site was already created, and display documents, photographs, videos, etc., so that the members can freely exchange and peruse them.

(3) The Defendants, while operating the Internet portal site, sell advertisements on their website and hybrids and raise profits.

D. The defendants' portal site services are provided.

(1) Method of operating the membership system

In order to use various services provided by the defendants portal sites, the Neth Pison shall file an application for membership in the form set by the Defendants and shall enter into a membership with the consent of the terms and conditions. Even if a person has not joined as a member, searching news articles and other posts that are different from news articles using news services and search services may not be posted or posted. However, the member terms and conditions prohibit users from impairing their reputation by pointing out facts or false facts, and prohibit users from infringing their rights, such as copyright, and using other persons’ names without permission, and allow them to restrict or delete the use of services if they violate the provisions of the terms and conditions.

(2) News Services Operation Methods

(A) The Defendants entered into a contract for the provision of news articles with newspapers, news agencies, online newspapers, etc. in order to provide news services on their Internet portal sites, and receive news articles, free of charge, from the above providers. According to the above contract, the providers of information guarantee the accuracy and reliability of the information, and the Defendants are unable to correct or delete the information without the request of the providers of information.

(B) News articles transmitted from the provider of information are set up in the database of the Defendants in real time, and are placed in a state in which they can be inquired through the search.

(C) The Defendants classify the transmitted articles by field, and select news articles in accordance with their own standards, such as originality, integrity, impact, etc., and place them on the initial screen of news services. In this context, there is a case where the number of exposed articles is increased, or the title of the articles is modified to attract readers’ attention.

(D) The Defendants open the posts of comments at the bottom of news articles so that they can add the short opinion to the Neth Ponn.

(iii) search service operation methods;

(A) The Defendants do not produce the data per se, but have access to online data, such as web documents, images, news articles related to the searched language, but have access to the search methods, such as setting a different search system, depending on the relevance with the search language, so that the data can easily reach the results of the search that they want.

(B) The knowledge search service provided by the Defendants is operated in such a way that other NAPs can describe their answers in the form of comments comments, if the NAP, which requires information, is inserted in the knowledge search service column.

(4) the method of providing community services;

The members of the Internet portal site can use community services such as carpets, clubs, US Homes, and Blouses, and the portal sites have separately prepared the following terms and conditions in addition to the terms and conditions of use of the portal site:

(A) A member may freely join or serve as a member of the club, such as a camera, club, etc., and may open the home, blouse, etc. However, the Internet portal site may be restricted or prohibited if the community has an unlawful purpose, such as posting obscene materials, holding another person’s secret, and committing a criminal act.

(B) The operation of the community is self-regulation and all the responsibilities relating to the establishment and operation of the community service between the Internet portal site and the community service user are entirely borne by the proprietor and the user of the community service. The Internet portal site does not bear an obligation to conduct regular and regular monitoring, except in cases where it is specifically reported with respect to activities within the community service, but may conduct monitoring within the community service on an irregular basis, and shall take appropriate measures, such as deletion of the notice, prohibition of the use of the community, and compulsory closure of the terms and conditions of the community service and the violation of relevant laws and regulations.

(c) If the right is infringed or discovered through the community service, the member may report it on the Internet portal site and require appropriate action.

(5) The status of the use of the defendants' portal sites

(A) As of the end of August 2006, Defendant Vienna: (a) as of the end of 23 million members; (b) as of the day of August 2006, the number of tables opened using the above Defendant’s community service, is 7 million won per day; and (c) 200,000 car pages are being operated; (d) as of November 2005, the number of visitors per day is 12.5 million and the number of visitors per day is 4.7 million.

(B) In the case of Defendant Telecommunications, around July 2006, around 38 million members are subscribed, and 3 million members per day are newly created, and 6.25 million members are subscribed to 43 million won per day. Within the above Defendant’s community service, 1.5 million members per day are 1.5 million members per day and 3.3 million news visitors per day are 3.3 million members per day.

(C) On August 31, 2006, the number of its members (i.e., the Home) on August 31, 2006, is 18.760,000 and 1080,000 clubs. In the case of NAE, the number of its visitors per day as of November 2005 is 9.5 million and the number of its visitors to the news per day is 1 million.

(D) As of May 31, 2005, 100,271 club numbers established using Defendant Pama Korea’s community services are 1,042,124, and net users are 1,042,124. Meanwhile, around July 2006, 2006, 3,312,441 tables opened on the above Defendant’s portal site are 3,737,467 members are using a blocing service. The number of visitors per day as of November 2005 is 4,50,000, and the number of visitors to news per day is 1.4 million.

2. Illegal acts committed by publishing related articles;

A. Facts of recognition

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, 1 through 5, 5, 1 and 6 of Gap evidence 3, and 1 and 2 of Gap evidence 5 and 6, the following facts can be acknowledged that the defendants stored articles related to the plaintiff (hereinafter "Plaintiff-related articles") in their news service column or stored in the database so that they can be searched through search services.

(1) Defendant Vienna

(A) On May 11, 2005, the article written by Nonparty 4, “Ne-Se-To-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S.

(B) On the 12th of the same month, at around 09:48, the article of Non-Party 5 was posted on the 12th of the same month, “I ambling,” “I ambling, I ambling,” “I ambling, I ambling,” and “I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I amb ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I amb ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I amb 10,000.”

(C) The article of the Digital News Team at around 13:28 of the same day, stating that “I complain of the suppression of his or her husband and wife,” was posted at around 13:28 of the same day, he or she sent the article of the Dongcom Digital News Team at the time he or she went to the post of the relevant detention room. While the mother of the mother of the West was in the course of carrying his or her name Kim Kim Kim, he or she refused to reach an agreement of the letter, and eventually, he or she refused to reach an agreement of the letter, which eventually led to the occurrence of the letter’s suicide on the Internet, and then, he or she got off 2-day and 80,000 nets visited with the Defendant’s next communication, and expressed a lot of comments to criticize the Plaintiff.

(D) On the 14th day of the same month, the article of the title, “The U.S. Homebook,” which was offered on May 14, 2005, complaining for the suppression of suicide from his wife, refers to the article of Non-party 6 of the Loneone Star News news news, stating the Internet violence issues of the Noneone Star news news media, along with the summary of the instant article, that the article of criticism on the Internet homepage of the Korean Broadcasting Program (Refered on May 12, 2005) that pointed out the Internet violence issues of the None Star news media.

(2) Defendant 1:

(A) On May 8, 2005, at least 14:56, the article Non-Party 7 posted the article on the news column, i.e., scub news’s scam, “Scam-to-scam,” “Scam-to-scam,” and “Scam-to-scam,” with the title “Scam-to-scam” and “Scam-to-scam.” The article introduces relatively detailed contents of the instant bulletin along with some pictures.” Many 34,40 Ncam-to-nicks, “Ne-scam-to-scams are working,” and the article’s address and address should be deleted to Non-Party 1’s scam-to-scam in order to scam the soften’s soften and scam-ten’s cam on the Internet,” and the article’s address and address should be deleted.

(나) 같은 날 15:02경 ‘ 소외 1의 자살사건을 보면서’라는 제목의 쿠키뉴스 기자 소외 8의 기사가 게시되었는데 위 기사의 첫머리에는 원래 기사에는 없는 “[블로그팀 2급 정보]”라는 문구가 부가되어 있다. 이 기사는 “싸가지라고는 1g만큼도 없는 김모씨라는 인간이 결혼을 전제로 사귀어온 여자( 소외 1씨)와 결혼을 빌미로 성관계를 맺어왔고, 임신을 하자 여자를 버렸다. 두 번째 임신 때는 ‘자기 아이가 맞느냐’ ‘단순히 정자 덩어리일 뿐’이라는 극언까지 해댔다. 한편, 그 싸가지 없는 김모씨의 실명과 인적사항이 벌써 공개되어 유포되고 있는 중이다. 공적인 인물은 아니지만 인터넷에서는 싸가지 없는 넘은 그렇게 공개적으로 짓밟히게 되어 있는 게 …. 인터넷의 속성이다. 막을 수도 없고 … . 인터넷은 그렇게 민중적이고 감정적인 매체다. 어떨 땐 우려스럽기도 하지만, 한편으론 소외 1씨 사건의 싸가지 없는 김모씨처럼 … 그렇게 짓밟혀도 싸다는 생각이 든다. 김모씨의 변명이 궁금해진다. 그런데 만약 그도 나름대로의 사정이 있다면? 인터넷은 참 무섭다. 침묵하는 자는 매장당하는 곳이다”는 내용과 함께 이 사건 게시물의 전문을 옮겨 실은 다음, 끝 부분에 소외 1의 생전 사진을 덧붙였다. 이 기사에는 원고에 대한 수많은 비난 댓글이 달렸고(2005. 5. 11.경 출력한 증거자료에는 댓글이 존재하지만 2005. 7. 16.경 출력한 증거자료에는 댓글이 삭제되고 남아있지 않다), 관련 카페가 링크(연결)되어 있다.

(C) On the 11th day of the same month, at around 20:04, the article of Nonparty 5 was posted on the Joseon Day, the title “Neth Roster” in the title of “Neth Roster,” which reads “Neth Roster,” who committed suicide by his wife.

(D) On the 12th day of the same month, at around 13:32, the article of the Digital News Team was posted in the same title, “I complain of the detention of his or her during their lives.”

(E) On the 12th 15:52 of the same month, on the 15th 12th 15:52, the article posted a series of articles in the same item, i.e., [clock in this week], Korea Sports Cask self-esteem in Korea, and the article introduces the case, i.e., Nonparty 1, the case of which the case was placed on the Nitter website, i.e., the case was placed on the Nitter 6th , to show the Internet's power rapidly and rapidly by Nitth Pison. The article is written by Nonparty 9, the chief of the search and analysis office of the following communication, and was placed

(3) Defendant Es Communications

(A) On May 13, 2005, around 19:47, the article of Lone Star News news reporter’s article on the title, “The None Star News’s article of “The None Star News’s Name-Free Mar. 13, 2005.” The article briefly introduces the instant bulletin and the Internet violent violence issues of the None Star News’s Internet against the None Star Broadcasting, stating that the article of criticism on the program’s website (in this article, Nonparty 1’s male-friendly statement) is being distorted and criticismed about Nonparty 1’s news report attitude. The article also criticizes the Plaintiff.

(B) On May 31, 2005, at around 14:00, the article of Non-party 10 reporters was posted to the 14th century, “Isnisher, if Isnisher go back, Is the female news of Non-party 10 reporters.” However, the phenomenon where the snicker’s streke and the strekeer’s streaker’s streaker’s streaker’s streaker’s streaker’s streaker’s streaker’s streak, which caused

(4) Defendant Field Korea

(A) On May 11, 2005, around 18:54, 2005, the article Non-Party 5, who was the reporter of the Joseon Year, in the title of “Nethal Pononn”, was provided to the Neth Ponn through the news service of “Yethn” in the title of “Nethn Sonn” (Seth, Alstn, Alstn,

(B) On the 12th day of the same month, at around 02:53, the article of the Digital News Team was provided to NAE PY.

B. The establishment of the liability for damages of Defendant NNN, the following communications, and the EN Communications

(1) Whether the Plaintiff’s reputation was damaged as an article related to the Plaintiff

As seen earlier, the above articles contain the following contents: “The Plaintiff entered into a sex relationship with the Deceased on the premise of marriage during his/her death with the Deceased, and caused the Deceased to engage in pregnancy more than two times, and eventually caused the Deceased to commit suicide,” regardless of whether it constitutes a true 7). It is obvious that the above articles would prejudice the Plaintiff’s reputation, regardless of whether or not they were married.

As to this, the defendants asserted that since the plaintiff's real name was affixed or there was no content that can directly identify the plaintiff among the articles of the plaintiff's assertion, they did not damage the plaintiff's reputation.

However, although the above articles do not per se indicate the plaintiff's real name and personal information, the articles of the above non-party 5 and the articles of the non-party 7 include the non-party 1's real name, photograph, and the original screen pictures of the Boy homep, which indicate the Internet address of the Boy homep, so if the plaintiff and the non-party 1 become aware of the fact that the person mentioned in the article is the plaintiff, it can be easily known that the person mentioned in the article is the plaintiff, and the information about the plaintiff's personal information can be easily known by visiting the Boypp of the non-party 1. The other articles also can obtain specific information about the plaintiff through a simple search based on the comments on the article or the information obtained from the article. Thus, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

(2) Whether the Defendants constitute a media media that is the subject of defamation

In ordinary media, three functions of news gathering, editing and distribution are core elements. Therefore, in determining whether the Defendants, the Internet portal site providing news services, constitute the media, it is necessary to first examine whether the above three functions are met.

First, in terms of distribution, according to the facts recognized above, the defendants have a partnership with the media companies, and are provided with articles on an average of 5,000 to 10,000 per day with the Internet via the infrastructure called the Internet, and are transmitting the articles to the NANs that are connected to the Internet, and in addition, inducing the interest in the articles to be created under the supervision of the posted articles, and inducing the exchange of information or formation of public opinion going beyond the contents of the articles itself. Thus, the defendants have a superior distribution function than any existing media.

Next, in terms of editing, the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendants are classified by political, social, and entertainment, etc., and the articles are selected and posted in major news columns by field in accordance with the standards of innerity, harmony, and intelligence through the interpretation work of the names, and where it is necessary to comprehensively express a number of articles related to a specific case transmitted by the media or where it is necessary to reduce the space of articles due to the spatial limitation of the above major news columns, the Defendants also put the title of the article to the compilation function.

Finally, it is true that the Defendants still remains in the role of posting news articles supplied from the affiliated media companies because they do not have news gathering personnel or even if they have news gathering personnel, such as Defendant 1’s next communication, are not adequate. However, in order to supplement the news reports, existing media companies are provided with news information from the news provider of the news company, and report the same status as news gathering materials, in light of the fact that the aforementioned role of the Defendants is included in a kind of similar concept of news gathering.

In light of the above circumstances, the Defendants should be deemed to constitute a media that has the function of coverage, editing, and distribution, rather than the mere role of the sender of the checked article. Although the Defendants entered into a contract for the provision of news contents with a media company that is a provider of the article, instead of being able to modify or modify the contents themselves, it is merely an internal liability sharing agreement between the Defendants and the said media company.

Therefore, in a case where the Defendants, as they sent articles containing the contents of defamation against the Plaintiff, keep them in the database and keep them available for search, and furthermore, actively posted the contents of the articles or articles in a specific area, so that they could easily access the Defendants’ portal sites, it should be deemed that they are liable to compensate the Plaintiff as joint tortfeasor with the relevant press organization for damages.

(3) Whether the Defendants engaged in similar editing activities

(A) The parties' assertion

In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts that all the Defendants posted title on the articles related to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “similar editing activities”) by setting the publication date, location, and period, etc., and the Defendants asserted that the articles related to the Plaintiff are merely simply delivered information without any similar editing act (However, Defendant next communication bears the time of publication of a editing book for the article “the publication of a publication of a publication of a publication of a publication of a publication of a publication of a publication of a publication of a publication of a publication of a publication of a publication of a news on the Internet, which was published on May 8, 2005,” which was published on May 14:56.

(B) Defendant ENN

According to Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1 and 7-2 and the reference materials submitted by the plaintiff, etc. <1> The non-party 4 posted the article of "Neromoer, Syang Paton" on May 10, 2005, which was inserted into the Internet board of "Neromoer, Syang Paton" by the non-party 4 on May 10, 2005, Defendant Neromoen, on May 11, 2005, as the title "Neromoer, Syang Paton, Saton," which was inserted as the title "Neromoer, Saton" in around 10:59 on the same day, and the article of this case, which was inserted into the article of this case on May 11, 2005, which could easily be seen as being exposed to the article of this case on the part of the plaintiff.

(C) Defendant 1:

According to the following facts, Defendant 7’s following news media recording on May 8, 2005, which was written by Nonparty 7 and entered on the Internet bulletin board of his own company around 14:49, and published the article on the editing board. According to the article No. 3-1 and No. 2 of the above article, Defendant’s publication of the article on Non-Party 7’s news media recording on the Internet bulletin board, and Non-Party 1’s publication of the article on Non-Party 3’s news recording on the same day, and Non-Party 5:02’s publication of the article on Non-Party 8’s news recording on Non-Party 2’s news recording on Non-Party 1’s news recording on the Internet bulletin board, it can be seen that Non-Party 1’s publication of the article on Non-Party 2’s news recording on the same day without any initial news recording on Non-Party 1’s news publishing on the Internet bulletin board (the above article on Non-Party 2’s news recording of Non-Party 1’s news recording.

(D) Defendant Es Communications

As seen earlier, Defendant KS Communications may criticize the Plaintiff’s news articles posted by Defendant KS Communications. In light of this point, it can be deemed that Defendant KS Communications did not merely keep the Plaintiff-related news articles in the database as transmitted by the media, but rather posted its title, etc. in a specific area so that they can easily access the news.

(e) Defendant YEN Korea

At around 18:54 on May 11, 2005, Defendant Nagoya Korea’s article of Nonparty 5 (No comments are written on Nonparty 6’s evidence printed on July 16, 2005) (No comments are written on comments) in the same title as “I complaining of the suppression of his or her father’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s 15 hours after the above article’s son’s 5 hours after the above posted.

(4) Sub-determination

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's reputation was damaged due to the article related to the plaintiff, and since defendant Loenna, next communication, and Es communication engaged in a similar editing act in publishing the article related to the plaintiff, the above defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the plaintiff as joint tortfeasor with the relevant press organization.

3. Illegal acts caused by neglect, such as notices;

(a) Facts of recognition;

Gap evidence 3-2, 5, Gap evidence 4-1 and 7, 5-1 and 5-3, 6-7, 1 and 4-7, 7-1 of Gap, 18-2 of Eul, 2 of Eul, 2, 10, 11, 12 of Eul evidence, 2-1, 4 of Eul evidence 2-2 of Eul, 4 of Eul, 2 and 3 of Eul, and 10 of Eul evidence 10, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings:

(1) Defendant Vienna

(A) The article written by Nonparty 4, Nonparty 6, “Neber News Co., Ltd.”, the article written by Nonparty 5, the title “Neber News Co., Ltd.”, the article written by Nonparty 5, the title “Seber News Co., Ltd.”, the article written by Nonparty 5, “I complaining against the suppression of his wife’s children,” the article written by Nonparty 6, which read “Seber News Co., Ltd., who was committed by his wife,” the article written by Nonparty 5, the title “Ie the suppression of his wife’s children,” the article written by Nonparty 6.

(B) In the service column, the Plaintiff’s personal information (name, telephone number, school, workplace, etc.), the contents of the instant notice, Nonparty 1’s address, and the Plaintiff’s photograph, etc. were posted to the question that “I need to punish Nonparty 1, who is in need of criminal punishment for the Plaintiff?” and “Is the Plaintiff’s age to die and die Nonparty 1’s suicide?”

(C) Blogs service posted the Plaintiff-related news articles, video images, Nonparty 1’s initial screen pictures, Plaintiff’s personal image description and photograph, etc., using Internet name (ID) such as “Ilisher”, “Illisher”, “Illisher”, “Ilisher,” and “Illisher’s photograph that Ilisher died,” and “Ilisher’s photograph that Ilisher was working in 05th and Ylllri publishing company. The name of early 76 years of age is Ilish. I want to inform this person’s movement.” The Plaintiff’s resignation, photograph, etc., including the Plaintiff’s resignation, and information on the Plaintiff’s personal image, and there were many other comments against the Plaintiff.

(2) Defendant 1:

(A) Along with Nonparty 8’s news reporters, Nonparty 8 expressed a large number of criticism comments on the Plaintiff, and relevant carpets were linked, as indicated in the news following the media (hereinafter “Non-Party 1’s suicide case”).

(B) In the case of inputting the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” into the search service hold, the search result was indicated as “The Plaintiff’s photograph on January 1, 2, Nonparty 1, 3, Nonparty 13, and 4, Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff on May 1, 2, Nonparty 6, the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff Company, and Nonparty 11, on August 8, 2008, the Plaintiff’s Ggentgs, 9. Nao, and Nonparty 11. In the case of inputting the Plaintiff’s entry, the search result was indicated as “the Plaintiff’s choice on the NAN 1-1 wald, 2.3, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant on April 1, 4, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 1’s Nam-gu, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 1 and 1-year, Nonparty 12, Nonparty 12, Nonparty 12, and Nonparty 10.”

(C) Through the carpet service column, there were a number of comments posted on Nonparty 1’s personal information, pictures, etc. (name, telephone number, school, workplace, etc.) and criticizes the Plaintiff by gathering Nonparty 1 and criticizeing Nonparty 1. Nonparty 1. and Nonparty 1’s corporate governance.

(라) 피고 다음커뮤니케이션의 커뮤니티 서비스 중 ‘아고라토론방’에는 ‘네티즌 청원, 고 소외 1님의 부모님 돕기 운동 - 김＊＊공개사과 촉구 15611명 서명 서명목표 17000명’라는 글이 게시된 후 ‘ ●●대 야간경영학과 원고...’, ‘남자이름이 원고라네요...’ 등의 많은 댓글이 게시되었다.

(3) Defendant Es Communications

(A) The news service column posted in the news service column of “Netro” showed a lot of comments to criticize the Plaintiff even in the news articles of Non-Party 10 reporters of “Seman News” under the title of “Neman News’s name in the items of “Ieman’s Daybook Egympia”, and “Ieman’s Mar. 10, 200”, which read “Ieman’s Mar. 10, 2006.”

(B) When inputting the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” into the search windows, the following parts of the search windows were searched by Nonparty 13, Nonparty 1, and Blue University. On the entry of “Nonindicted Party 1” into “Nonindicted Party 1,” the following parts were searched by a notice tool: (a) the words “the Plaintiff, Nonparty 13, and Dogggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggs

(C) A majority of the comments posted by Nonparty 1’s surviving families, including Nonparty 1’s instant notices, and Nonparty 1’s information such as Nonparty 1’s photograph, name, school, telephone number, electronic mail account, and company, etc., including Nonparty 1’s “to visit her mother who has failed to meet all minutes,” and “to prepare 49 systems,” were posted to Nonparty 1’s neighboring families.” A majority of the comments on the criticism of the Plaintiff, including Nonparty 14, 15, and 16, were posted to the U.S. members of other enclosed members, including Nonparty 1’s photo, name, school, telephone number, electronic mail account, etc.

(4) Defendant Field Korea

(A) In the case of inputting the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” into the search hold using the search service, Nonparty 1, along with the Plaintiff’s photograph, private staff, personal information, etc., recommended Nonparty 1 to the NAN PP recommendation language, and, in the case of inputting Nonparty 1’s “Nonindicted Party 1,” the result of search, such as the article against Nonparty 1, the content of the instant notice, Nonparty 3’s appeal, Nonparty 1’s photograph and permanent photo, Nonparty 1’s photo and permanent photo, and the Plaintiff’s personal information, such as the Plaintiff’s cell phone number, company address, etc., was indicated as the result of search.

(B) In the Brogs service column, many articles were inserted in the Brogs that introduce the Plaintiff’s criticism and Nonparty 1’s Internet address.

(5) Partially restrictive deletion by the Defendants

(A) From May 16, 2005, Defendant Vienna excluded the Plaintiff’s real name from the search ranking, as the Plaintiff’s real name began to appear in the real-time search ranking.

(B) The Defendant: (a) 3 hours after entering the articles of Kukki News Non-Party 7 in a editing board that is easily accessible to readers; and (b) the Plaintiff’s real name, which is revealed on the website Nonparty 1, began to be criticized in the comments, the said articles were released from the editing board; and (b) the said articles were deleted from the editing board; and (c) the comments that slander the Plaintiff through the above Defendant’s debate service, carpet service, etc. were published consecutively; and (d) the said Defendant deleted the comments in which the Plaintiff and Non-Party 1’s real name or defamation is contained.

(C) On May 7, 2005, Defendant KS Communications: (a) took a self monitoring on Nonparty 1’s family on May 8, 2005, with a rapid increase in the number of visitors to Nonparty 1’s home; and (b) requested Nonparty 1’s family members to voluntarily close the said U.S. home; and (c) deleted the posts of other members including the Plaintiff’s real name and personal information from around that time. From May 21, 2005 to June 30 of the same year, the Defendant deleted two of them after receiving a report from Nonparty 17 that “if the Plaintiff’s real name is registered and thus, the removal of the notices is different.”

(D) From May 9, 2005, Defendant Ama Korea deleted comments that are highly likely to cause defamation to the Plaintiff in relation to the news service sector (the first posting of news articles related to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2005, which was published by the said Defendant on the news service sector, appears to have been added to the comments that were deleted prior to that on May 11, 2005, to the articles unrelated to the Plaintiff.)

(6) Plaintiff’s request for deletion and its response

(A) Notwithstanding the above measures taken by the Defendants, the Plaintiff-related notice still remains as seen in the following (7).

(B) On June 27, 2005, through Nonparty 18’s agent Nonparty 18, the Plaintiff demanded to delete the Plaintiff’s comments on the Plaintiff’s relevant articles, 1. The Plaintiff’s entire deletion of the Plaintiff’s comments on the relevant articles, 2. The relevant trends, heratties, homepers, and tables, 3. As such, the Plaintiff’s closure of community concerns over the Plaintiff’s damage, and the blocking and deletion of direct and indirect information, etc. appearing in search with the Plaintiff.

(C) The Defendants responded to the following: “The Plaintiff’s demand alone does not make any specification of the relevant notices, making it difficult to prepare a solution therefor; thus, the Plaintiff’s request for deletion.”

(7) The remainder of the Plaintiff-related bulletin, etc.

(A) Defendant ENN

Around June 25, 2005, on the search page of the knowledge search site that was printed out on June 25, 2005, a notice related to the plaintiff existed frequently, and even the data printed on July 13, 2005 and July 16, 2005 remains a statement that criticizes the plaintiff.

(B) Defendant 1:

On June 8, 2005, Gap's evidence 3, which was outputd in the Hanman, still appeared to have the search language of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's photograph, the non-party 1, the non-party 13 and the non-party 13, and the plaintiff et al.., and even around July 13, 2005, as seen above, the plaintiff's family member was able to help the non-party 1's surviving family member and recommended the plaintiff to participate in the signature to urge the plaintiff's disclosure and sign it, and there were 16,800 comments on the comments that were continuously raised from May 8, 2005 to the effect that the plaintiff's news was linked to the bottom of the plaintiff-related news published on July 16, 2005.

(C) Defendant Es Communications

On the search screen (record 387 pages) of the search site (record 387) that was printed on June 2005, Plaintiff-related posts were frequently present, and on July 14, 2005 and July 16, 2005, the comments criticize Plaintiff still remain.

(D) Defendant Huma Korea

On the search screen at the search site that was printed out on June 2005, the Plaintiff-related posts were frequently posted.

(8) The Plaintiff’s filing of the lawsuit and the Defendants’ deletion measures, etc.

(A) On July 7, 2005, the Plaintiff opened a press conference at the Press Center and clarified that the Defendants would be liable for civil damages, and reported the press conference to the news 24 on the same day.

(B) On July 8, 2005, Defendant Vienna deleted the results of the search on the real name of the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 in the field of knowledgeiN and web, and monitor and delete the notices related to the Plaintiff posted on a camera, blog, etc. from that date to that date.

(C) After receiving the instant complaint on September 2005, Defendant 1’s following communication deleted the Plaintiff’s notice on the car page service area.

(D) On July 18, 2005, Defendant KS Communications closed the comments of the news articles of the Plaintiff-related news articles, and registered the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” and “ Nonparty 1” in a closed language to block search. On August 25, 2005, Nonparty 3’s use of the instant text was suspended.

(E) From July 8, 2005, Defendant Boyna Korea deleted the Plaintiff’s personal information that appears within the community and knowledge search service.

(f) As of the date of the conclusion of the argument at the trial, the notice pertaining to the Plaintiff is not searched when searching “the Plaintiff” through the search service operated by the Defendants.

B. Establishment of the defendants' liability for damages

(1) Criteria for determination

In order to hold the provider of information and communications services, such as the Defendants, liable for damages caused by defamation when he/she neglects posting the contents of other persons’ reputation on the Internet portal site (including the uncompied news articles, comments on the news articles, pictures, tables, and the home page, etc.; hereinafter the same shall apply) managed by him/her, such provider of information and communications services as the Defendants, should be held liable for damages caused by defamation. In order to hold the provider of information and communications services liable for damages due to defamation, the provider of information and communications services has a duty to delete or block the search. Whether such duty exists should be determined by taking full account of the following: (a) the purpose, contents, period and method of posting, degree of damage caused by posting, the relationship between the provider and the victim, the existence of the demand for counterargument or deletion; (b) the nature and size of the relevant site; (c) whether the provider of information and communications services has profit-making purposes; and (d) the time when the provider of information and communications services knew or could have known the contents of the posting; (c) 20. 20.

(2) Determination

(A) Recognition or predictability of the occurrence of damage

Considering the aforementioned circumstances and recognized facts, ① the scope of information disclosed to Nonparty 1, including the Plaintiff’s Internet address, has been expanded and high possibility of privacy exposure, the restriction on the freedom of speech should not be mitigated on the basis of public interest. The victim’s reputation should be first considered in the instant case. It is evident that most of the instant notices were made for the purpose of slandering and attacking a specific person regarding matters entirely belonging to the private sector. ② The Defendants provided the Plaintiff-related articles through the media service and search service; ② the Defendants offered the Defendant-Neve, the subsequent communication, and the online news service provider’s instructions to delete the Plaintiff’s personal information; ④ the Plaintiff’s disclosure order, including the Plaintiff’s personal information, was easily deleted; and ④ the Defendants offered the Plaintiff-related articles, including the Plaintiff’s personal information search and seizure; and ④ The Defendants offered the Plaintiff-related articles, including the Plaintiff-related articles, by readily communicating the news service provider.

(B) Possibility of avoiding the infringement

According to the above facts, (1) the Defendants have the authority to delete or delete comments that may cause damage to other persons by monitoring them under the terms and conditions of the contract entered into with NEN and make it impossible to search them; and (2) the Defendants have the authority to deprive users who display such comments of their rights to do so; (3) as they provide various kinds of services to NEN for profit-making purposes and create enormous profits; (3) as to search services that greatly contribute to the spread of damage, expenses required by social norms should be borne; (8) the Defendants set up [the Plaintiff” or “Non-Party 1” as one word, so that information search can also be prevented; and (4) the Defendants could not be easily removed from the Plaintiff’s technological information that appears to be “the Plaintiff 1 + Non-Party 1” and “the Plaintiff 1” and “the Plaintiff 1,” and the Defendants could not have known the contents of the online search service, including the Plaintiff’s “the Plaintiff 1’s online search information” to the Plaintiff.

(C) Violation of the Defendants’ duty of care

In full view of the above, since the Defendants could have known or predicted the spread of the Plaintiff’s damage and could avoid the result, in this case, there was a special reason to deem that the Defendants had the duty to delete or block the search without the Plaintiff’s request at the time when the Defendants knew or could have known the existence of the Plaintiff’s notice.

Nevertheless, the Defendants took only measures to delete or block the Plaintiff-related posts in full or in part without blocking the search. Accordingly, on June 27, 2005, the Plaintiff demanded measures to completely delete the notices that are likely to cause damage to the Plaintiff against Defendant Loenna, Esccom, and Esccom, and Esccom Korea. However, the said Defendants showed an aesthetic attitude, and the deletion of the Plaintiff-related notices was made after July 8, 2005, after the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to file a lawsuit claiming damages. Around July 16, 2005, when the Plaintiff collected evidentiary materials to bring the instant lawsuit, the Defendants failed to perform their duty of care to prevent damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation or to perform his/her duty of care without justifiable grounds.

Defendant next communication asserts to the effect that, as soon as possible, there was no liability for damages caused by neglecting the Plaintiff’s comments on the Plaintiff’s damage prevention. Accordingly, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, No. 7-B, No. 2, 10, 11, and 12, it is acknowledged that the above Defendant took measures, such as deletion of comments, etc. at the time compared to other Defendants, and the Plaintiff did not demand the deletion measures, etc. against the above Defendant. However, the search service provided by the above Defendant on June 1, 2005 was still searched by the search service provided by the above Defendant on the ground that “Neth Popon-Son Pon Ponn Pon Pon Pon Pon Pon Pon Pon Pon Pon Pon 13, Bon Pon Pon 13, and Nonparty 13,” and even around July 13, 2005, the Defendant’s assertion that it was possible to criticize the Plaintiff by urginging the Plaintiff’s signature at the Plaintiff’s open debate, and that it still remains at the lower portion.

C. Sub-decision

As above, the Plaintiff’s notice contains a high number of inquiries, and comments made a large number of comments on the upper and upper level in the order of the Defendants’ search, and there were concerns over such phenomenon. As such, the Defendants did not take measures of deletion or search blocking even though they were easily aware or could have known of the existence and side effects of unlawful expressive materials, but instead did not take measures of deletion or search blocking, so that the Plaintiff could easily know the location of such expressive materials through news articles, search services, etc., thereby impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation or widely spread of the contents that infringe on the privacy. Such acts constitute aiding and abetting the Plaintiff’s tort against the Plaintiff by Nonparty 3, etc., and therefore, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor as the Plaintiff under Article 766(3) of the Civil Act.

4. Whether joint tort was established and the scope of the defendants' liability

A. Whether the Defendants constitute joint tort

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants’ act of impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation by commission or omission as above constitutes a joint tort inasmuch as the Defendants’ act competes with or near time, place, and resulting in a single result of defamation against the Plaintiff, considering the reality of using information while using multiple Internet portal sites at the same time.

Therefore, in order to constitute a joint tort under Article 760 (1) of the Civil Act, each party's intentional act or negligence requires an objective joint tort against infringement. Since the Defendants damaged the Plaintiff's reputation by each party's intentional act or negligence through the Portal Site area operated, the Defendants cannot be deemed to constitute a joint tort among the Defendants solely for such reasons, even though the Neth Pis is in close vicinity when the Defendants exchanged information with the Defendants' portal site area or the Defendants posted the articles, and the contents of the article are identical.

B. The scope of the Defendants’ liability

(1) As to the claim for mental damage

In light of the empirical rule, the Plaintiff’s tort caused by publication of the Plaintiff’s articles related to the Plaintiff and the tort caused by the Defendants’ neglect of the Plaintiff’s relevant articles, the Defendants are obligated to pay monetary distress to the Plaintiff. The number and contents of the articles related to the Plaintiff, the portal site operated by the Defendants, and the degree of the Defendants’ own efforts to delete. Nonparty 1’s primary notice was opened on the hurbs operated by the Defendant KS. Nonparty 1’s primary notice was more than two months after the first notice on the Internet, and more than 0 more than 0 days after the posting on the Internet, and more than 0 more than 0 hurbs, the Plaintiff’s demand for the deletion of the Plaintiff’s related articles on June 27, 2005, the Plaintiff’s disclosure of the Plaintiff’s personal information on the Internet, including 00 hurbs and 00 hurbs and 00 hurgs and 00 hurgs and 00 hurgs.

(2) As to a claim for property damage

As the contents of the instant notices have widely spread due to the Defendants’ acts, the Plaintiff made a call to criticize the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s office, workplace, and school. On the wind that criticizes the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s workplace or school’s website, the Plaintiff could no longer have been able to attend the Plaintiff at the time of paying the registration fee for the company’s products that the Plaintiff attends, even at the Plaintiff’s workplace or school’s website. Moreover, the Plaintiff was 246,24,942 won as daily income, and the Plaintiff’s mother was able to receive hospital treatment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff claimed compensation for damages equivalent to 10,372,081 won as school expenses, 3,543,00 won as director’s expenses, 150,000,000 won, and 984,00 won as medical expenses.

On May 8, 2005, when the Plaintiff retired from the company, the first news article against the Plaintiff was posted, and on May 6, 2005, the Defendants posted the news articles and other expressions that damage the Plaintiff’s reputation on the portal site operated by the Defendants. However, considering the fact that the NAP might have been difficult for the Defendants to anticipate that the NAP would have engaged in abnormal behavior, such as making the Plaintiff call to the Plaintiff’s company, school, etc., and threatening the Plaintiff to use the NAP to withdraw, leave, and threaten the Plaintiff to harm the Plaintiff, it cannot be said that there is a proximate causal relation between the Defendants’ act and the Plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part is rejected.

3. Conclusion

As such, since the court below's judgment accepted in the first instance court's judgment among the above amounts of 10,000,000 won for the plaintiff, 7,000,000 won for the defendant's following communication, 8,000,000 won for the defendant's e-mail, 5,000,000 won for the defendant's e-mail Korea, 5,000,000 won for the following communication, 4,000,000 won for the defendant's e-mail, 3,000,000 won for the following day for the defendant's e-mail, 200,000 won for each of 7,000,000 won for the above e-mail after the date of tort, 3,000,000 won for each of 5,000,000,000 won for the remaining damages for delay from the date of final delivery of the complaint of this case, 20, 5,00% per annum for each of this case's.

However, since part of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff is unfair based on its conclusion, it is revoked in part by accepting the plaintiff's appeal, and it is ordered to pay the above money additionally recognized by the court of first instance against the defendants. Since the remaining part of the judgment is legitimate, the remaining appeal by the plaintiff and appeal by the defendants against the plaintiff against the plaintiff of the plaintiff of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as it is all without merit

Judges Cho Sung-sung(Presiding Judge) Kim Sung-soo

Note 1) The annual report s.m., PS. users access to the web page, including the first site (including h.b. H., h., bureauwawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawawa

Note 2) The term “web and lg,” a synthetic language of LOg, meaning the Internet, is an tweb and an lg, but is a type of personal site that can freely write letters according to one’s own official review, such as a tweb, sboo, screen rap, manual book, sbood, sbood, photocom, newspaper, etc.

3) The term “Internet club” refers to an Internet club organized and operated by members for the purpose of sharing data, promoting friendship, etc. mainly on certain topics on the Internet portal site. Most portal sites provide club services with the same function as above in the name of a camera or club. If members of the portal site join the portal site, they may either open a camera or join the existing camera in accordance with the form provided on the portal site.

Note 4) The Homebook is the end of the website’s reduction, which means the page that was first shown when accessing the web site to the URL (including the types of services to be connected to indicate the location of files on each server that provides the service on the web, the location of the server (doine four) and the location of the file).

Note 5) The reader’s opinion attached to the text written in the form of a web document is a new text from the text written in the Internet bulletin board or the text written in the form of an opinion or opinion on the text written in the Internet bulletin board or the text written in the (UUA) text, and is also written in the form of rilass and answers to the text written in the form of an answer or opinion, and is also written in the form of rilass.

6) For example, in the search system of adult objects, search language “sea” is deemed to have greater relations with “sea”, but in that of minor objects, “sea” is deemed to have more excellent search results.

7) According to Gap evidence 11 (Ruling of the Press Arbitration Commission), the Press Arbitration Commission may recognize the fact that "one man has broadcasted twice or more to the other woman," and the result of the confirmation that this man has made it clear that the other woman is not pregnant, and this man has made it clear that the other woman is not pregnant," and in light of this point, the non-party 1's assertion of pregnancy on the notice in this case can be different from the fact.

Note 8) Where a specific piece of piece of piece of piece of piece of piece of piece of piece of piece is selected and no search is possible, or where the piece of piece of piece is intended to be searched by using it, the result of the search will be provided at any time through a separate authentication procedure (sex authentication, etc.), but the result of the search in which the piece of piece of piece of piece is included will not be provided.