2. Hyo; and

3. ○○.

4. △△;

5. Audit. ○○

6. High-level ○○

7. Category ○○; and

8. Press consumer sovereignty campaigns;

Jongno-gu Seoul Jongnoro 6-ro 36 (Mandong, Officetel 208)

Representative **

9. △△△.

10. Bilateral benefits;

11. 이■■

12. Ma○○

13. △△;

○ ○

15. Ratification ○

16. Habbox ○

17. Maumbia

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Attorney Lee Jong-young, Lee Jong-young, Park Jong-young, Lee Jin, Lee Jin-ri, leap

Seoul Yangcheon-gu 4, 1254 Yang Venture Complex

Change of representative director* *

2. Co., Ltd.:

Seoul Samsung 1 Dong 168 - 26 Japanese Building Holdings

Representative in-house director**

3. Expenses for IMS cables in a stock company;

Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Yang-dong 4 22 CM non-building

This representative director**

Attorney Lee Dong-gu, Park Jong-sung, and Dui-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Defendant CVVA (hereinafter “Defendant CV”) is the Plaintiff Kim-○, Inc.:

COO, EO, EO, and EmbO, and Emboo Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Cmboo”) means:

고 강○○, 고○○, 류○○, 언론소비자주권국민캠페인, 이△△, 이●●, 이 ■■, 정이

○, △△, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Defendant CMB cable Telecommunication costs (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”)

Defendant CMVTTTTT costs each of 50,000 won to the Plaintiff Amb○○, and any of them

Payment of 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

(n)

1. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs asserts that the Defendants did not transmit the KBS2 broadcast from January 15, 2012 to 19:00 of the next 19:00 hours from January 16, 2012, the Plaintiffs asserted that, since they violated the Plaintiffs’ right of viewing under the Framework Act on Consumers, which are the customers of the composite cable broadcasting, or violated their obligation to provide broadcasting under the contracts for the use of the composite cable broadcasting, they claim 50,000 won as consolation money for emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiffs.

2. 원고 강○○, 언론소비자주권국민캠페인, 이△△, 이●●, 이■■, 조○○, 추○○ , 함○○의 청구에 대한 판단

First of all, although Plaintiff C&O submitted as evidence the evidence a certificate No. 12 by asserting that he/she joined a contract for the use of composite cable broadcasting by Defendant C&C, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the instant broadcast accident was a party to the around January 2012, 2012, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the said assertion.

다음으로 원고 강○○, 이△△, 이●●, 함○○은 피고 씨앤앰의 방송상품 중 SD 상품에 가입하였고, 원고 언론소비자주권국민캠페인, 이■■, 조○○은 피고 씨앤앰의 방송상품 중 아날로그 상품에 가입한 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 을제17호증에 의하면 피고 씨앤앰이 이 사건 방송사고 당시에 HD 방송을 송출하지는 않았으나, SD 방송과 아날로그 방송을 송출한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로 위 원고들의 청구는 모두 이유 없다 .

3. Determination on the claim by the Plaintiff Kim○-○, Ma○-○, Lee ○-○, this case’s insurance company, △○-○, Ma○-○, Ma○-○, Matu-○, and Ma○-○

(a) Basic facts

The Defendants, as a CATV broadcasting business operator, have the obligation to provide the broadcasting services prescribed in the terms and conditions to the customers who subscribed to under the terms and conditions of the CATV broadcasting use. The broadcasts as prescribed in the said terms and conditions vary depending on the Defendants, but are less than 40, more than 140, more than 40, depending on the types of broadcasting products. The Defendants did not transmit the KBS2 broadcasts for 28 hours from January 16, 2012 to 19:00 on the following day. At the time, the share of audience of the KBS2 broadcasts was 13.345%, and at the time, the share of audience of the KBS2 broadcasts was 13.345% (Evidence 3).

In addition, Plaintiff Kim○, ○○, ○○○, and △○○○○, as customers who concluded a contract to use a composite cable broadcasting service with Defendant CCB, they could not view KBS2 broadcasting due to the instant broadcast accident. Monthly usage fee was KRW 30,270 by Plaintiff Kim○○, KRW 2,640, and KRW 11,00 in each of the 11,00 won by Plaintiff ○○, ○○, and this △○○, and KRW 11,00 in each of the ○○, ○, ○○, ○○, ○○, and △△○, and △△○, concluded a contract to use a composite cable broadcasting service with Defendant CCB, and concluded a contract to use the instant broadcast service with Defendant CCB, and the monthly usage fee was KRW 14, 630, and KRW 10,000 in each of the instant broadcast accidents, and KRW 30,010 and KRW 200 in each of the instant broadcast accidents.

According to the above facts, the defendants are obligated to provide the broadcasting services prescribed in the terms and conditions to the customers who subscribed to the terms and conditions of the composite cable broadcasting use as a composite cable broadcasting business operator. The defendants violated the above contractual obligations by preventing customers from viewing the broadcasts due to the instant broadcast accident.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ temporary suspension of broadcasting did not constitute a cause for breach of contract since they notified the fact of the suspension of broadcasting and ordered it on the website in order to reduce the confusion of the viewers. The Defendants asserted that the transmission of digital broadcasting signals was practically impossible due to the order of the court concerning the suspension of broadcasting and the cooperation of the Korea Communications Commission, etc.

However, at the time of the suspension of the Defendants’ broadcast, the disputes between the Korea Broadcasting System, MFC, and SS and CATV broadcasting business operators, which are terrestrial broadcasting business operators, were caused by the infringement suspension and prevention claim lawsuit against the CATV broadcasting business operators, and the appellate court of the instant case rendered a judgment that the Defendants shall not simultaneously re-transmitting digital terrestrial broadcasting signals sent by the terrestrial broadcasting business operators to the subscribers who newly subscribed to the CATV broadcasting products after the lapse of 30 days from the date the judgment was served on the Defendants, and the enforcement fine imposed KRW 150,00,000 per day, which was accumulated as of January 16, 2012, imposed a enforcement fine of KRW 10 billion for the above judgment, and the cumulative enforcement fine of KRW 10,000 per day was imposed on only the new subscribers, and it was technically difficult to transmit digital terrestrial broadcasting signals separately to them. However, the aforementioned circumstances were caused by civil disputes between the CATV broadcasting business operators and the terrestrial broadcasting business operators, but there was no justifiable reason to deem that there was no property burden on the terrestrial broadcasting contracts.

C. As to the infringement on the Framework Act on Consumers

The plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants did not transmit the KBS2 broadcasting due to the instant broadcast accident constitutes a tort against the rights under Articles 2 subparag. 1 and 19(1) of the Framework Act on Consumers, but the above Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on Consumers cannot be deemed to apply to this case claiming consolation money for mental suffering, and Article 19(5) of the same Act provides that consumers' complaints or damages due to defects in goods, etc. shall be resolved, and consumers' damages due to nonperformance shall be compensated for due to nonperformance, etc., it cannot be deemed that the damage claim under the above provision is established separately from the damage claim against the original and the Defendant’s composite cable broadcasting that violated the contract, and even if separate damage claim is established, the damage liability is the same as that caused by breach of the contract.

D. As to the liability for damages, (1) the amount of damages suffered by the above plaintiffs due to the broadcast accident of this case

According to the facts established above, the above plaintiffs could not view KBS2 broadcasting for 4 hours a day due to the instant broadcast accident. Considering that the period of 4 hours a day from 0 to 19:00, a time period of 20 hours a day was 4 hours a day, the above plaintiffs could not actually view the broadcast for 1 day.

If so, among the 30,270 won paid in the case of Plaintiff Kim ○, the amount of the Plaintiff’s failure to enjoy due to the failure to view the KBS2 broadcasting due to the instant broadcast accident is equivalent to 130 won (30,270 wonx 1/31 dayx x 1, 3345 a day). Of the 2,640 won paid in the case of Plaintiff Kim ○, the amount of the Plaintiff’s failure to enjoy due to the instant broadcast accident is equivalent to 11 won (2,640 wonx 1/31 dayx 31 days), and the amount of the Plaintiff’s failure to enjoy due to the Plaintiff’s failure to view the instant broadcast due to the instant broadcast accident is equivalent to 30 days (2,640 won) from among the 2,640 won paid, 12, and 100 won, the amount of the Plaintiff’s 1,215 daysx 30 days from the instant broadcast accident.

The Korean Broadcasting System, MFC, and SS and CATV broadcasting business operators, which are terrestrial broadcasting business operators, filed a lawsuit seeking suspension and prevention of infringement of copyright, etc. against terrestrial broadcasting business operators. After the lapse of 30 days from the date the judgment was served on the Defendants, the appellate court rendered a judgment that they shall not simultaneously re-transmitting digital terrestrial broadcasting signals sent by terrestrial broadcasting business operators to the addressees who subscribe to the goods of the said case, and imposed a enforcement fine of KRW 150,00,000 per day, which was accumulated as of January 16, 2012, and imposed a enforcement fine of KRW 10 billion. Moreover, it was technically difficult to say that the enforcement fines accumulated as of January 16, 2012, did not separately transmit digital terrestrial broadcasting signals to only the new subscribers.

Although CATV broadcasting business operators are engaged in negotiations with terrestrial broadcasting business operators, the final negotiation was concluded on January 15, 2012 (Evidence 1).

On January 16, 2012, CATV broadcasting business operators, including the Defendants, notified each apartment complex of the fact that 15:0 on the day from 00 to 200, KBS2 interrupted, and show screen caption of the same content through the screen of cable broadcasting. (3) With respect to the mental suffering of the above plaintiffs, customers who concluded a contract for the use of cable broadcasting, like the above plaintiffs, are provided with news provided by broadcasting, culture programs, drama, etc., so that they can receive knowledge, satisfy intellectual protection and enjoy a sense of sense. As such, broadcasting viewing is likely to mainly satisfy mental aspects.

Therefore, if the broadcast accident of this case does not have to satisfy such mental aspect, it is reasonable to view that the damages caused by the accident can be claimed as consolation money.

그러나 이 사건 방송사고로 인하여 위 원고들이 KBS2 방송을 시청하지 못한 것은 28시간으로 실질적으로는 하루 정도에 지나지 아니하였던 점, 피고 쌔앤앰의 고객인 원고 고○○, 류○○, 정○○, 정□□은 HD 방송으로는 KBS2 방송을 시청할 수 없었으나 SD 방송으로는 시청할 수 있었고, 다른 원고들도 뉴스와 같은 경우는 다른 대체할 수 있는 방송들이 있었던 점, 위 하루 동안의 KBS2 방송의 이용료에 상당한 손해액은 3개의 SD 방송에 가입한 원고 김○○가 210원, 중간정도의 이용요금을 지급한 원고 류○○, 정○○이 52원, 가장적게 이용요금을 지급한 원고 심○○이 11원 정도로써 소송으로 청구할 만한 금액이 되지 못하는 점, 이 사건 방송사고로 특정한 프로그램을 시청하지 못하여 고통을 입은 사례가 있었는가에 관하여 원고 김○○가 2012. 1. 16. 오후 10시에 KBS2 방송에서 방영되는 월화 드라마 ' 브레인 ' 과 그 후에 방영되는 ' 안녕하세요 ' 를 시청하지 못했다고 주장하는 외에 다른 원고들은 특정한 프로그램을 시청하지 못하여 고통을 받았다는 주장을 하고 있지 아니한 점, 특히 이 사건 소송을 제기한 원고 강○○, 언론소비자주권국민캠페인, 이△△, 이●●, 이■■, 조○○, 함○○의 경우 이 사건 방송사고로 KBS2 방송을 시청하지 못하여 고통을 받았다는 주장을 하면서도 정작 그들이 가입한 KBS2 방송의 SD 방송이나 아날로그방송의 경우 종전과 마찬가지로 시청할 수 있었다는 사실도 파악하지 못하고 있었던 사실로 보아 이 사건 방송사고로 KBS2 방송을 보지 못한 데에 대한 정신적인 고통이 별로 없었다고 보이는 점, 그 반면에 피고들을 비롯한 종합유선방송사업자들의 경우 지상파방송사업자들과의 분쟁에 패소한 상태에서 막대한 이행강제금의 부담을 안고 있었다는 점 등을 고려하면, 위 원고들이 이 사건 방송사고로 KBS2 방송을 시청하지 못함으로써 다소 정신적인 고통을 겪었다고 하더라도 그 정도는 사회생활을 함에 있어서 수인하여야 할 한도 내에 있다 .

It is reasonable to see that it is.

E. Sub-committee

All claims filed by the above plaintiffs due to breach of duty under a contract for use and the infringement of rights under the Framework Act on Consumers are without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims of this case are dismissed.