beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.08.16 2017구합86170

시정명령 취소

Text

The Defendant’s corrective order issued to the Plaintiff on September 14, 2017 is revoked.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Details and details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a program provider who operates home shopping business with the approval of the Minister of Science and ICT with respect to a program provider engaged in specialized programming of product introduction and sale (hereinafter “ home shopping business”).

B. From December 2016 to June 2017, the Defendant conducted fact-finding investigations to determine the investigation period for seven home shopping business operators in Korea including the Plaintiff as “from June 2016 to October 2016” (hereinafter “instant period”) and to verify whether the prohibited acts under the Broadcasting Act were violated.

Grounds for Disposition and Summary of Judgment

1. Transfer of the cost of producing a prior image;

A. Prior to the cost of the production of the pre-video of the directly purchased goods and the goods holding trademark rights, the Plaintiff charged the supplier (hereinafter “instant supplier”) with all of the cost of the 55 pre-video production of the sales of the direct purchased goods (the goods purchased from the supplier while the home shopping business operator bears the responsibility for sales) during the instant period, and the Plaintiff bears all of the cost of the 100 pre-video production of the sales of the goods (the goods) that the supplier owns trademark rights.

(hereinafter referred to as “the act of charging the production cost of the instant prior video”). As such, the act of charging the production cost of the prior video to the supplier constitutes an act of unfairly passing all or part of the production cost, and thus, Article 85-2(1)7 of the Broadcasting Act and Article 63-5 [Attachment 2-3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

VII. It is judged to violate subparagraph 3.

B. The Plaintiff’s failure to prepare a broadcast agreement related to the cost-sharing of prior video production costs does not include matters concerning the cost-sharing of prior video production costs in the broadcast conditions agreement, and there is no relevant provision, and there is no system failure, and the Enforcement Decree of the Broadcasting Act is generated.