beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a public institution affiliated with E, which is engaged in the classification and post management of A under the D Promotion Act (hereinafter “D Act”), and Nonparty F is a person who served as the Plaintiff’s chairperson from March 25, 2015 to July 30, 2018.
B. Defendant B is a reporter of the Defendant Company Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and the Defendant Company is an employer of Defendant B, a corporation established for Internet newspaper business, etc.
C. On July 14, 2017, the Defendant Company posted an article identical to the attached Form No. 2 (hereinafter “instant article”) in the Internet newspaper “G” [H]cop published by the Defendant Company as “I” (hereinafter “instant article”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In setting the limitation between the freedom of the press and the protection of reputation of the general public, there are differences depending on whether the expression pertains to a private (private) relationship or a public relation. In other words, whether the expression concerns a public existence or a private one, whether the expression concerns a matter of public interest or a purely private one, whether the expression concerns a matter of public interest or a matter of public concern, and whether it contributes to the formation of public opinion or public debate on a matter of public nature or sociality that the public should objectively know to the public, and whether it contributes to a formation of public opinion or public debate on a matter of public nature or social nature, and if the expression concerns a matter of private one, the personality right of reputation protection can take precedence over the freedom of the press, but if the expression concerns a matter of public and social meaning, it should be evaluated differently, and the restriction on the freedom of the press should be mitigated, and whether the victim is the first person of the risk of defamation.