2. Cultural broadcasting of stock companies;

3. SPS Co., Ltd.

A. The Defendant shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 200,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from September 6, 2014 to November 24, 2016, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 3/4 of the total litigation costs is assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay each of the plaintiffs 800,000,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day on which a copy of the complaint in this case was served ( September 6, 2014) to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff is seeking damages based on the unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter "the Unfair Competition Prevention Act") or the infringement of trade secrets under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Civil Act.

Purport of appeal

[Plaintiffs] Amendment to the first instance judgment as stated in the purport of the claim.

[Defendant] The part against the defendant among the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are dismissed.

【Evidence Class 1 through 9, 26, 53, 55, 64, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 8, and 12 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(a) A party;

1) The Plaintiff Korea Broadcasting System (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff KBS”) is a national key broadcasting company established under Article 43 of the Broadcasting Act, and the Plaintiff’s cultural broadcasting company (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff MBC”) and the Plaintiff SBS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff SBS”) are terrestrial broadcasting business operators established under Article 2 subparag. 3(a) and Article 9(1) of the Broadcasting Act for the purpose of broadcasting business and cultural service business.

2) The Defendant also is a general programming program provider established under Article 2 Subparag. 3(d) and Article 9(5) of the Broadcasting Act for the purpose of broadcasting business, etc.

B. Predicting and investigating the Plaintiffs’ results of the 6th nationwide local election in 2014

1) On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiffs agreed to jointly implement the 'the prediction and investigation of the party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-

In order to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of prediction of election broadcast, the plaintiffs shall jointly conduct the 'predicted inspection of the candidates' nationwide local elections (Article 1).

The term "predicting and investigating the winner" (hereinafter referred to as the "predicting and investigating the winner") means a general investigation (explation and telephone investigation) that predicts the winner for the ballot counting of the above election (Article 2). For the forecast and investigation, the plaintiffs constitute a joint investigation committee focusing on the "KP" joint forecast investigation committee (KP and Elol) established and operated within the Korea Broadcasting Association (Article 3).

The Joint Estimated Investigation Committee of Local Election Broadcasting Companies 2014 shall be comprised of two members recommended by the plaintiffs, including the Chairperson of the Planning Group, and shall be appointed by the Chairperson (Article 4).

· All the expenses incurred in forecast and research shall be borne equally by the plaintiffs (Article 5).

- The forecast and investigation shall be conducted jointly by the investigating agencies recommended by each of the plaintiffs (Article 7).

- Various data (including original data) arising from forecast and research results shall be owned jointly by the plaintiffs (Article X).

2) Pursuant to Article 7 of the instant agreement, Plaintiff KBS recommended SBS Co., Ltd. Mabrid Media Bookbook; Plaintiff MBC Co., Ltd.; and Plaintiff SBS Co., Ltd. as an investigating agency. around April 2014, the Plaintiffs concluded a service contract for the forecast and investigation of the instant election (hereinafter referred to as “instant service contract”) with the said three investigating agencies, setting the price as KRW 2.4 billion (excluding value-added tax) between the said three investigating agencies in the name of the Broadcasting Company Joint Inquiry Commission (KSP). The main contents are as follows.

Article 1 (Scope and Contents of Investigation)

(1) The scope and details of survey services to be provided by "B" (referring to the above three survey agencies; hereinafter the same shall apply) to "A" (referring to the joint forecast investigation committee for broadcasting companies; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be as follows:

(1) The prediction of the winner of the City/Do election;

(2) ADDDDDDDDD ACT. - Survey scale: (1) Telephone Survey Samples: 41,000 copies

(2) The number of entrance and exit polling stations: Article 2 (Report on Results and Submission of Results) of the 648 polling stations shall be submitted to "A" at the designated date and time as follows:

- Interim Report: A shall be subject to an agreement of three broadcasting stations to which “A” belongs.

Report on Results of Final Predictions: June 4 (Water), 17:0 30 o'clocks. (Reversion of Results of Security Confidentiality and Investigation)

(1) The rights of the same investigation data and the result thereof belong to A, and B, and they cannot disclose or transfer to a third party all the data obtained in the course of the investigation without prior approval of A.

(2) "A" and "B" have a duty to keep confidential the results of the investigation.

③ In the event that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the secrets were leaked to the public as a result of the investigation conducted by the intention or negligence of “B” and that the reputation and status of “A” were lost, and that the actual election price had an impact, the company of “B,” which leaked the secrets, bears all civil and criminal liability related to the above, as well as the imposition of penalty for breach of contract by 50% corresponding to the contract price by each company.

3) After that, on April 24, 2014, a confidentiality agreement was concluded between the Plaintiffs regarding the results of forecast and investigation to be acquired through the instant service contract (hereinafter “instant confidentiality agreement”) as follows.

The plaintiffs shall not divulge to a third party any information obtained in the course of their business as the subjects jointly conducting the 'predicting and investigating the voters' of the 6th regional election at the same time without prior agreement (Article 1). In particular, as a common asset that should be strictly maintained as a result of the opening investigation immediately after the completion of voting on the election day, the plaintiffs shall not leak to a third party until the voting is completed, regardless of whether they were intentional or negligent and form of data. (a) As to the violation of the above agreed matters (Article 2). (b) As to the violation of the agreed matters, all of the plaintiffs may present objective evidentiary data and claim KRW 50,00 won to the subject who violated the agreement, and the persons proved the violation shall be paid to the KEP (Joint Forecast of Broadcasting Companies), and the KEP (Article 7) shall be paid in equal installments (Article 7).

4) Accordingly, the said three survey agencies conducted a telephone survey on June 4, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant election day”) regarding the instant election and an prediction and investigation on the 648 polling stations, and notified the Plaintiffs of the forecast and investigation results, including the same contents as the attached table (hereinafter “the instant forecast and investigation results”) around 17:30 of the instant election day.

C. Acquisition and broadcasting of the Defendant’s forecast and investigation result of the instant case

1) Meanwhile, at least 17:32 on the day of the instant case, A, a reporter belonging to the Defendant, obtained the results of the instant forecast and investigation through a group or reading room of “the mobile phone Mappppact,” which is used by 9 reporters including himself, and around that time, reported this to B, a producer for news production belonging to the Defendant.

2) From around 18:00 to 00 on the day of the instant case, the Defendant announced the result of the Defendant’s self-predicting investigation only for the election of the head of the 4 metropolitan organizations (Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gyeonggi-do, Incheon Metropolitan City, and Busan Metropolitan City). From around 18:0:49 on the day of the instant case, the Defendant first published the result of the prediction investigation of the instant broadcast under the title “Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor Mayor’s 1,2 candidates and their respective expected return rates for the election of the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the first and second candidates and their respective expected return rates.”

D. Broadcasting of the Plaintiffs’ forecast results

1) From 18:00:00 on the day of the instant case, the Plaintiffs also disclosed the outcome of the instant predicted survey while commencing the instant election ballot counting from 18:00 to 00, and the detailed method of disclosure is as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

2) According to the difference in the above disclosure method, in the case of Plaintiff MBC, the result of the instant forecast inspection was first made public in order than the Defendant, but in the case of Plaintiff KBS and SBS, the result of the instant forecast inspection was made public later than the Defendant with respect to some areas or items.

E. The plaintiffs' objection and criminal complaint

1) On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiffs informed the Defendant of the time when the instant predicted survey results was obtained and the route of obtaining the instant predicted survey results, etc., on the ground that the Defendant sent the instant predicted survey results to the Defendant via the broadcast screen that was prepared in advance, from the time when 40 seconds elapsed after the completion of the instant voting.

2) Accordingly, the Defendant, on June 4, 2014, 2014, 6, and 26, reported the result of the self-predicting investigation to the Plaintiffs immediately after June 18:00, 2014, when the voting of this case was closed, and reported the result of the terrestrial exit investigation to the viewers through legitimate news gathering activities. The Defendant responded to the purport that the report was not made first at the time when the Plaintiffs did not report.

3) On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant and his employees, including the Defendant, A, etc. on the charge of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (hereinafter referred to as "business secrets, etc."), and the prosecutor investigated the criminal complaint against the Defendant, A, etc., and then filed a prosecution against the Defendant, A, etc. for the crime of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (hereinafter referred to as "related criminal case").

2. Issues of the instant case

A. The defendant's act of unfair competition caused by the defendant's act of using the defendant's result without permission

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

C. Scope of damages

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The defendant's act of unfair competition caused by the defendant's act of using the defendant's result without permission

【Plaintiff’s argument】

The result of the prediction and investigation of this case is the result that the plaintiffs paid considerable amount of 2,400,000,000 won to the plaintiffs. The defendant acquired the result of the prediction and investigation of this case by improper means from the broadcasting time of this case to 30 minutes, and disclosed the result of the prediction and investigation of this case to the public at least the same time or at least part of the plaintiffs like the plaintiffs without the plaintiffs' prior consent or permission. This asserts that the result of considerable investment and effort made by the plaintiffs was unlawful as it violates fair commercial practices or competition order, and constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

[Dissenting of the Defendant]

The Defendant obtained the results of the instant predicted investigation as part of lawful news gathering activities according to the practices of the media community, and did not obtain the results of the instant predicted investigation with any intention or purpose. At around 18:00:00 on the day of the instant case, Plaintiff MBC first disclosed the results of the instant predicted investigation at around 18:0,00, and for the convenience of comparison, it did not use them in a way contrary to the fair competition order by properly citing and reporting the results of the instant predicted investigation by stating that the results of the instant predicted investigation should be disclosed after the disclosure of the results of the instant predicted investigation in accordance with the previous practices, and that the results of the instant predicted investigation would be “terrestrial departure investigation” in accordance with the previous practices. Therefore, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s use of the results of the instant predicted investigation did not constitute

[Judgment]

1) Relevant legal principles

An act of using the outcomes of considerable effort and investment by a competitor without permission for his/her own business in violation of business ethics or the order of fair competition, thereby gaining unjust profits by taking advantage of the competitor’s efforts and investment and infringing on competitor’s legal interests worth protecting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2008Ma1541, Aug. 25, 2010) constitutes an act of unfair competition and constitutes tort under civil law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 20

However, Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter "the Unfair Competition Prevention Act") newly established Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, which provides that "an act infringing another person's economic interest by using another person's investment or effort without permission for one's own business without permission in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order in order to properly cope with new and diverse types of unfair competition acts that appear due to technology changes, etc., other than the unfair competition acts under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) through (i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

2) Whether the outcome of the instant forecast and investigation constitutes the Plaintiffs’ performance

First, we examine whether the outcome of the prediction and investigation of this case constitutes the outcome made by the Plaintiffs’ considerable investment or effort, and the following circumstances revealed in the premise facts as seen earlier. In other words, in order for the Plaintiffs to obtain the outcome of the prediction and investigation of this case, the Plaintiffs concluded the instant service contract with three research institutions and paid a large amount of expenses equivalent to KRW 2,400,000 (excluding value-added tax). ② The three research institutions which concluded the instant service contract with the Plaintiffs have conducted a telephone investigation for 41,00 persons and a departure investigation for 648 polling stations in order to obtain the outcome of the prediction and investigation of this case. The three Plaintiffs are deemed to have endeavored to maintain the confidentiality of the outcome of the prediction and investigation of this case, such as the conclusion of the confidentiality agreement in advance so that the outcome of the prediction and investigation of this case is not leaked to third parties. In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the outcome of the prediction and investigation of this case constitutes the outcome made by the Plaintiffs’ considerable investment or effort.

3) Whether the defendant illegally used the plaintiffs' results for the defendant's business without permission

A) Article 2 Subparag. 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that the use of another’s outcomes constitutes an unfair competition act in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order. Thus, the use of another’s outcomes does not go against the commercial practice in the pertinent field, nor does such use go against the fair competition order, and rather, it does not constitute an unfair competition act in a case where considerable competition is promoted.

B) As to the instant case, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the following facts in light of each of the aforementioned facts, Gap evidence Nos. 24, Eul evidence Nos. 31 through 37, 39, 50, 52, and 64, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

① Since 17:31 on the day of the instant election, C worked as a member of the global daily political division at the time of the instant election, he received the forecast and investigation result from his name in the mobile phone, and published it in the group room of “Kakakakao Stockholm,” which is a mobile phone cryp, where eight reporters of the global daily political division, including D, belong. At around 17:32 on the day of the instant election, D again posted it in the group room of “Machip,” which is a mobile phone cryp, used by the nine reporters including the reporters A, who belong to the Defendant, on the day of the instant case.

② During the investigation process of the relevant criminal case, D, other than C, received data of the same content as two to three times including those transmitted by C through the hosting room to which other reporters belong. Around 17:30-17:40 of the day of the instant case, Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. stated that, “F, an employee of Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. E, received the results of the entrance investigation through mobile phones and received the results of the entrance investigation.

③ At least 17:40 on the day of the instant case to receive text messages from a reporter affiliated with Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd., one of the survey agencies conducting the instant forecast and investigation. Around 17:41 on the day of the instant case to receive text messages verifying the authenticity of the instant forecast and investigation results. On the day of the instant case, Asan Foundation sent some of the results of the instant forecast and investigation (the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Design-Related Parts) to Asan Foundation as text messages. Around 17:46 on the day of the instant case. Around 17:46 on the day of the instant forecast and investigation, Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. sent a summary of the results of the instant forecast and investigation to employees affiliated with Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd and Cheongdae-dae and administrative officers.

④ The outcome of the instant forecast and investigation was disclosed on the bulletin board comments posted on the Internet bulletin board website around 18:00 on the day of the instant case, and at least 18:00:40 on the Internet news site at least on the day of the instant case.

⑤ Meanwhile, the Defendant obtained and reported the results of the prediction investigation of the instant case posted by the reporters affiliated with the Defendant’s global daily newspaper, as seen above, on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant obtained the results of the prediction and investigation of the instant case before broadcasting the result of the prediction and investigation of the instant case. The Plaintiffs first announced the result of the prediction and investigation of the election of the heads of four metropolitan organizations, and first announced the result of the prediction and investigation of the instant case. In the case of Plaintiff MBC, the Defendant broadcasted the result of the prediction and investigation of the instant case, which was revealed that it was a terrestrial departure investigation after publishing the result of the self prediction and investigation of the election of the heads of four metropolitan organizations, and the ratio of the 1,2 and the 1, and the

C) However, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s broadcast without the Plaintiffs’ prior consent, which is the outcome of the instant forecast and investigation, without any dispute between the parties, and the Defendant’s broadcast without the Plaintiffs’ prior consent, of the outcome of the instant forecast and investigation without the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant’s broadcast without the Plaintiffs’ prior consent constitutes an act of using the outcome of the instant forecast and investigation without the Plaintiffs’ prior consent for the Defendant’s business in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order, in light of the aforementioned premise and the evidence Nos. 16, 50 through 56, 65, 2, and 5-1, 5-2, and 11.

① Since 195, the result of the oral investigation conducted by a broadcasting company, etc. in various elections is deemed to have maintained the method of citing and reporting the results of the oral investigation conducted by another broadcasting company after the broadcasting company directly conducted the oral investigation. Thus, even if the Plaintiffs had obtained the result of the instant predicted investigation before broadcasting the results of the instant predicted investigation, or considering the circumstances disclosed to the Plaintiffs and some other parties or Internet sites other than the investigating agency that directly conducted the instant predicted investigation, it appears that the Defendant could not first broadcast the outcome of the instant predicted investigation before broadcasting the outcome of the instant predicted investigation (as seen above, in the document submitted to the first instance court in the H Station in charge of the Defendant’s news field (Evidence No. 11) submitted by the Defendant, even if the Defendant had obtained the results of the oral investigation in advance, it was a plan to verify the results of the instant predicted investigation if the Plaintiffs broadcast the results.

② Prior to the instant election, the Defendant proposed that other general broadcasting channel operators have contacted with public opinion poll organizations and jointly conducted a broadcasting channel withdrawal survey, but did not accept the Defendant’s proposal to jointly conduct a broadcasting channel withdrawal survey. The Defendant, on April 4, 2014, entrusted the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City, Gyeonggi-do, and Busan Metropolitan City with the duty of conducting a telephone withdrawal survey on the instant election only as an area of research, and paid KRW 140,00,000 to the price. In light of the foregoing circumstances, the Defendant, not a telephone public opinion poll on four areas including Seoul Special Metropolitan City, etc., but rather, was fully aware that the outcome of the instant forecast survey, which is the result of the Plaintiffs’ enormous efforts and investment, was sufficiently known.

③ As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs invested considerable costs and efforts to provide viewers with the outcome of the prediction and investigation of the instant case. Furthermore, in the event that the ballot counting commenced after the completion of the voting as the instant forecast and investigation results, and the information the value of which is maintained temporarily for a certain period of time until the winner of the relevant constituency was reported, as a result of the instant forecast and investigation, the amount of which is the highest value of the information at the time when the broadcast company can legally publish the result of the advance polling and inspection, while the value of the information would be reduced relatively as the real-time ballot counting begins and the real-time ballot counting situation is reported to the voters.

However, even if the defendant disclosed the results of the prediction and investigation of this case to the public later than the plaintiff MBC, which started to disclose all of the forecast and investigation rates of the plaintiff 1 and the second after the second after the beginning of the whole area of the plaintiffs, the defendant, even though the plaintiff 2C started to open the 18:0:46 days immediately after the beginning of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 18:0:0:49 on the day of the instant case, which started to open the 18:0:0:49 in order to the public in order, thereby disclosing the results of the prediction and investigation of this case to each area, it is reasonable to allow the plaintiff 3:32 seconds (the part of the prediction and investigation that the plaintiff 2C first disclosed around 18:00 on the day of the instant case to the public, including the result of the prediction and investigation of the plaintiff 2C to the public later than that of the plaintiff 18:00:00 on November 13, 2015.

④ In fact, the Defendant did not make any contribution in the process of creating the outcome of the instant forecast investigation. However, the Defendant did not make any effort or cost, and obtained it immediately before the instant election ballot-counting through mobile phone Massen that is private-useed by the Defendant, and did not obtain permission from the Plaintiffs to use the result of the instant forecast investigation, but did not obtain permission to use the result of the instant forecast investigation, to reduce the time required for the Plaintiffs to broadcast the results of the instant forecast investigation and to cite it, the Defendant added the outcome of the instant forecast investigation to the exit entry program prepared in advance without waiting the Plaintiffs to broadcast the outcome of the instant forecast investigation. Then, the Plaintiffs compared all possible parts by comparing the results of partial forecast investigation disclosed around 18:00:0 on the day of the instant case with the result of the instant forecast investigation obtained by the Defendant, concluding that it was the result of the instant forecast investigation conducted by the Plaintiffs, and reporting it at a very high point of time for new information guidance, such as reporting it.

⑤ With respect to the Defendant’s report citing and reporting the results of the instant forecast investigation, H, a chief executive officer of the Defendant’s news station, concurrently holding the Defendant’s news station in the first instance court (Evidence No. 11), refers to the statement of vindication (Evidence No. 11) submitted by the Defendant to the first instance court. The Defendant first announces the results of the Defendant’s self-precepting investigation prepared at the time of the instant election ballot counting, and thereby confirms the results of the Plaintiffs’ withdrawal investigation. If the Defendant’s self-precepting investigation is not verified during the period of the Defendant’s self-precepting investigation, the Defendant’s self-precepting investigation was to repeatedly broadcast the outcome of the Defendant’s self-precepting investigation. The Defendant’s procriptive investigator did not publish the results of the Defendant’s self-procepting investigation, and it appears that there was a problem that the Defendant voluntarily reported the outcome of the instant forecast investigation.

6. Although the Defendant announced the result of the prediction survey conducted by the Defendant before broadcasting, it was limited to the head of the 4 metropolitan organizations, which is merely a telephone public opinion poll with a little degree of accuracy different from the result of the prediction survey conducted by the Defendant, and the Defendant broadcast the result of the prediction survey conducted by the Defendant, which was 40 seconds after the commencement of the ballot counting on the day of the instant broadcast, on the other hand, and thereafter continued to broadcast only several portions or the result of the prediction survey conducted by the Defendant, it does not appear that the Defendant merely reported the result of the prediction survey conducted by the Defendant to provide convenience in comparison with the result of the self-survey conducted

The Defendant asserts that in the 18th presidential election and the 19th presidential election, which was implemented in 2012, other broadcasting companies broadcast the result of the Plaintiffs’ predicted survey during the hours close to the Plaintiffs’ broadcasting hours, but the Plaintiffs did not raise any objection thereto, thereby allowing other broadcasting companies to broadcast the result of the election prediction survey produced by the Plaintiffs, who are terrestrial broadcasting business operators, in close relation to the Plaintiffs’ broadcasting hours. However, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had formed broadcasting practices as claimed by the Defendant at the time of broadcasting the result of the instant predicted survey solely on the evidence submitted by the Defendant or the result of the election broadcast broadcast broadcast broadcast No. 2 claimed by the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

8 After the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in this case, the 20th National Assembly member election, which was opened after the plaintiffs conducted a field investigation, respectively, and opened the results of the prediction of the number of seats around 18:00 to 00 to 18:01:38 on the election day. The defendant made a report by the field reporter at night around 18:02:45 on the result of the prediction of the number of seats of the plaintiffs, after which the plaintiffs came to know all the results of the prediction of the number of seats of the plaintiffs, and made a report by the method of oral citing the results of the prediction of the number of seats of the plaintiffs. From around 18:03:50 on the last one minute thereafter, the news report citing the results of the prediction of the number of seats of the plaintiffs in the form of a caption at the bottom of

9. Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s broadcast act corresponds to Articles 27 and 28 of the Copyright Act as a result of the Defendant’s forecast and investigation, and thus, it cannot be deemed as going against fair commercial practices or competition order. However, apart from whether the result of the prediction and investigation in this case constitutes a copyrighted work under the Copyright Act, Article 27 of the Copyright Act only provides that the reproduction, distribution, or broadcast of current articles or arguments inserted in newspapers, Internet newspapers, or news communications is allowed by other media organizations, and that the broadcasted copyrighted work is excluded from the subject of the application, and Article 28 of the Copyright Act provides that the copyrighted work may be quoted within the reasonable scope for news reports, criticism, education, research, etc., and that it is difficult to conclude that the cited report conforms to fair practices in light of the aforementioned circumstances, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act is permitted pursuant to Articles 27 and 28 of the Copyright Act.

4) Whether the Defendant violated the Plaintiffs’ economic interests by using the Plaintiffs’ performance without permission

Although the outcome of the prediction and investigation of this case was disclosed after the voting is completed so that the public can expect the result as soon as possible, and furthermore, the public interest nature of promoting the degree of interest in the election of the voters, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs are treated as having independent economic value as the subject of the transaction, such as conducting negotiations on the authorization to use the forecast and investigation of this case on the premise that the Plaintiffs would pay a certain amount of expenses to the media company which requested the purchase of the predicted and investigation result of this case, and the Defendant broadcast the forecast and investigation result of this case where the customer attraction had a customer attraction without permission at the high time of new guidance as the result of the prediction and investigation of this case. Further, considering that both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant as broadcasting business operators are in the relationship of competitors in the field of broadcasting, etc., it is reasonable to view that the Defendant violated the economic interest of the Plaintiffs by using the predicted and investigation result of this case without permission for one’s own business, by taking advantage of the Plaintiffs’ considerable effort and investment.

5) As to this, the defendant's act citing and reporting the results of the forecast and investigation in this case did not meet the requirements for infringement of trade secrets, and furthermore, it constitutes a type of act permitted by the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act that permits the presentation of current articles and works already made public. The supplementary nature of Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, which does not meet the requirements for recognition of infringement, but does not meet the requirements for recognition of infringement, or is evaluated as legitimate act, Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act cannot be applied to the above act by the defendant.

Pursuant to the Intellectual Property Act, such as the Patent Act and other intellectual property rights, the creation of various intellectual property rights, the protection of others’ outcomes, and the limitation thereof, among the acts of using the results made by investment or effort of others, to prevent the biasedness of others’ intellectual creation activities or business credit. Therefore, the use of the outcomes of others, which are not subject to protection by intellectual property rights, should be freely permitted. In addition, a free competition society is established under the premise of ensuring equality of all others, including enterprises, and predictability (referring to predictability for the limitation of legal nature) of the outcome of their own acts. Therefore, the legal norms on such acts should be clear, and in principle, caution should be exercised in the application of the general provisions that have a wide range of legal norms by interpretation.

Meanwhile, in principle, other persons’ use of outcomes that are not subject to the protection of intellectual property rights is a free area. As such, a certain rationality is not recognized to regulate such use. In many cases, the illegality of such use, i.e., the act of using other persons’ outcomes, is unreasonable in light of the principle of ensuring fair and free competition among competitors, which are common norms of competition society. Therefore, information, etc., which is another person’s outcomes not protected by the Intellectual Property Act, can be freely copied and used even if they have property value. However, there are “special circumstances that are not justified in light of fair trading order and free competition order in the use of another person’s outcomes.” If it is apparent that there is a shortage of incentives to producers of intellectual outcomes without protecting the use of such intellectual outcomes, such reproduction or use may not be permitted. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s use of trade secret under Article 2 subparag. 1(j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, as seen earlier, can not be justified in light of the Defendant’s aforementioned legislative research purpose and its purport.

(vi) reorganization;

Therefore, the Defendant’s use of the predicted research result of the instant case constitutes an act of unfair competition under Article 2 subparag. 1(j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, which infringes on the Plaintiffs’ economic interests by using the outcomes, etc. achieved by considerable investment or effort of the Plaintiffs for one’s own business without permission in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order. The

C. Occurrence of liability for damages

【Plaintiff’s argument】

The plaintiffs, due to the defendant's illegal act of broadcasting the result of the prediction and investigation of this case without permission, reduced the viewing rate of the plaintiffs compared to the viewing rate in the case where the defendant did not committed the defendant's illegal act. The plaintiffs' awareness that the result of the prediction and investigation of this case is exclusively broadcasted, resulting in the decline in brand value and the escape of the impulse customers who want to fix the channel to terrestrial broadcasting, thereby causing property damage from the advertising revenue. Even if not, at least, suffering property damage equivalent to the ordinary usage fee related to the use of the result of the prediction and investigation of this case, so the defendant is liable for compensating the plaintiffs for damages caused to the plaintiffs by the defendant

[Judgment]

1) Article 14-2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that a victim’s liability for claiming compensation for damages arising from an unfair competition shall be mitigated, and it does not purport to recognize the infringer’s liability for compensation for damages even in cases where it is evident that no damage has occurred. However, in light of the purport of the provision, it shall be deemed sufficient to assert and prove the existence of the risk or probability of the occurrence of damage in the degree of assertion and proof as to the occurrence of the above damage (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da4319, Sept. 12, 1997; 2006Da22722, Nov. 13, 2008).

2) As to the instant case, the damages for which the Plaintiffs may claim against the Defendant are damages incurred to the Plaintiffs by using the results of the instant predicted survey, which is the Plaintiffs’ performance, without permission, and first, we examine the damages arising from the decline in advertising revenues, etc. claimed by the Plaintiffs.

However, solely based on the evidence Nos. 11, 24, and 52-2 of the above, it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion that the viewing rate of the plaintiffs due to the defendant's unfair competition act was reduced compared to the viewing rate in the event that the defendant did not have the defendant's unfair competition act, the brand value decline caused by the defendant's unfair competition act, the shock customer going to fix the channels to terrestrial broadcasting, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (It is evident that the plaintiffs did not claim in advance after deducting intermediary interest losses equivalent to the lost daily income which was partly lost in the advertisement income which the plaintiff could have gained in the future). Rather, according to the evidence No. 42 of the above, the viewing rate of the plaintiffs around 18:00 on the day when the election ballot counting of this case started, around 18:00,00, and even if the viewing rate of the plaintiffs was partially reduced compared to the viewing rate of the defendant's unfair competition act, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiffs suffered losses from the defendant's unfair competition act of this case.

3) However, on the other hand, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiffs suffered damages, such as reduction in advertising revenues, etc. from the Defendant’s unfair competition act. Although the Plaintiffs did not sell the predicted investigation results to other broadcasting business entities, and the Defendant’s report form cited the Plaintiffs’ forecast and investigation results indicated that they were the results of forecast and investigation conducted by the Plaintiffs, if the Plaintiffs, other broadcasting business entities, other than the Plaintiffs, did not conclude any contract related to their use with the Plaintiffs and allow the Plaintiffs without any cost-sharing solely on the above grounds that they broadcast the predicted investigation results of the instant case and use them for their own business without permission, this would result in the promotion of infringement, as well as lack of social reasonableness, and thus contravene the purport of newly establishing Article 2 subparag. 1(j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Furthermore, the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by considering the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 11, 18, 52, are as follows: ① the defendant has a record of finding whether the defendant could participate in the prediction and investigation of this case before the election of this case; ② the chief of Ethical Ethical Planning Group of Ethical Co., Ltd. other than the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "YTN") also asked the plaintiffs about the purchase as a result of the prediction and investigation of this case; although it is difficult to accept the proposal in cases where YTN is not a joint participation of 1/n level through internal meetings, it would be difficult to officially indicate that YTN would have agreed to review the proposal if YTN officially expressed its intention to participate at 1/n level; ③ Even if it is not a press organization, it is difficult to conclude that the voting-related pre-inspection company concluded a fixed result, newspapers, etc., and sold it at the time of the purchase or investigation of new information of this case, including the plaintiffs.

If there are these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs suffered property damage due to the loss of opportunities to compensate for part of the expenses paid by each of the plaintiffs in order to acquire the result of the prediction and investigation of this case by receiving reasonable usage fees, etc. which the plaintiffs agreed upon if they had entered into a contract to sell or use the results of the prediction and investigation of this case with the defendant, and therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to unfair competition under Article 5 of the Unfair Competition

C. Scope of damages

【Plaintiff’s argument】

The plaintiffs claim that the defendant is obligated to pay 80 million won (=2,400,000,000 won (cost paid by the plaintiff to obtain the result of the prediction and investigation of this case)/3) and damages for delay as damages equivalent to the ordinary fees calculated pursuant to Article 14-2 (3) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act to the plaintiffs due to the defendant's unfair competition act. Even if not, they are obligated to compensate for damages equivalent to the same amount pursuant to Article 14-2 (5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

[Judgment]

Where a person whose business profit has been infringed due to an unfair competition act claims damages under Article 5 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, he/she may claim damages as his/her own amount equivalent to the amount which he/she would normally receive for the unfair competition act (Article 14-2(3) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act). In addition, where it is extremely difficult to prove the fact necessary to prove the amount of damages due to the nature of the relevant fact, notwithstanding the existence of damages in a lawsuit concerning unfair competition, if it is extremely difficult to prove the amount of damages due to the nature of the relevant fact, the court may

Article 14-2 (5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act)

In the case of this case, it is difficult to view that there is proof of damages equivalent to ordinary usage fees, such as that the plaintiffs did not actually sell the predicted investigation results of this case to the defendant or a third party other than the defendant or have received compensation and did not permit the use thereof. Thus, it is reasonable that the court has determined a reasonable amount of damages based on the whole oral argument and the evidence examination result pursuant to Article 14-2 (5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Therefore, in full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to assess the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the Defendant’s unfair competitive act as KRW 200,000,000, based on the premise as seen earlier, Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 5-3 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings.

① It appears that the Plaintiffs were 00,000 won under the premise that they exclusively broadcast this case’s forecast and investigation results under the same status as the Plaintiffs. Thus, if the Defendant wishes to broadcast the above forecast and investigation results, it appears that the Defendant would have spent much less than the above 2,400,000 won. Korea’s 280,000,000 won, which is a public opinion poll institution, was 60,000 won in advance of the instant election, was 60,000 won in advance of the purchase price investigation under the premise that the Plaintiffs would not independently incur losses to the Defendant (see, e.g., value-added tax, which would have been 0,000 won in advance of the instant election.). However, even if the Defendant would have agreed that the Defendant would have paid damages to the Defendant under the same status as the Plaintiffs, it would have to have agreed that the Defendant would have obtained an equal outcome from the Defendant’s prediction and investigation under the same conditions as that of the instant investment organizations.

② At the time of the instant agreement, the Plaintiffs agreed to share equally the expenses incurred in acquiring the results of the instant forecast investigation and jointly own the results of the instant forecast investigation provided by the investigating agency. As such, the amount of KRW 60,000,000 that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiffs in return for using the results of the instant forecast investigation was equally divided into the number of parties to the instant agreement (= KRW 660,000,000), each of which was equally divided by the number of parties to the instant agreement (= KRW 660,000,000) appears to have been compensated by the Plaintiffs for each of the expenses paid by each of the parties to

③ However, the Plaintiffs did not fully use the predicted investigation results due to the Defendant’s unfair competitive act, or did not gain any benefit from the predicted investigation results of the instant case.

It is difficult to see the result of the prediction and investigation of this case, and the defendant announced the result of the prediction and investigation of this case in order after the plaintiffs announced a significant part of the result of the prediction and investigation of this case, and clearly indicated its source by indicating that it is "SBS, KBS and MBC" on the broadcasting screen.

④ Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that the result of the prediction investigation in this case was leaked regardless of the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not illegally acquire the result of the prediction investigation in this case, and that the circumstance where the Plaintiffs did not properly manage the confidentiality of the outcome of the prediction investigation in this case should be considered in calculating damages. However, the Defendant’s unfair competition act at this case, which is the issue, is not the acquisition of the predicted investigation in this case, but the use without permission, should not be considered in calculating

⑤ In addition, the Defendant asserts that even if the Defendant did not obtain the result of the prediction investigation of this case before 18:00 on the day of this case, it should also be considered that the Defendant could sufficiently report the ballot-counting broadcast of this case and broadcast the result of the prediction investigation of this case. However, the Defendant’s unfair competition act at this case at the point of time when the property value of the result of the prediction investigation of this case is not yet lost, is an act using it without permission of the Plaintiffs at a very high time at the same time as the broadcasting time of the Plaintiffs at the same time as the broadcasting time of the Plaintiffs, or without any specific time difference. The Defendant’s report of the contents of the broadcast of this case could not reduce the Plaintiffs’ damage caused by the

(6) Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that daily broadcasting companies (hereinafter “MBN”) that are program providers engaged in general programming other than the Defendant should also consider the circumstances cited and reported the Plaintiffs’ predicted results in the same way as the Defendant in calculating damages. However, even if MBN engaged in the same unfair competitive act as the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, even if the Plaintiffs were to claim damages against MBN, it is difficult to deem that the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the Defendant’s unfair competitive act were reduced due to the act of MBN, such circumstances should not be considered in calculating damages.

(d) Reorganization;

Therefore, the Defendant’s damages amounting to KRW 200,00,000 for each of the above illegal acts and the following day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case as sought by the Plaintiffs as of September 6, 2014, which is clear from September 6, 2014, that it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation, and Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

The main text and the main text of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015) are liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum pursuant to the statutory interest rate of Article 3(1) of the former Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015). (The plaintiffs claim that the defendant's act acquired and disclosed the result of the predicted investigation of this case, which constitutes trade secrets, constitutes a trade secret infringement under Article 2 subparag. 3(a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act or a tort under the Civil Act, and that it constitutes a trade secret infringement under Article 11 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act or Article 750 of the Civil Act. However, if the defendant's act of unfair competition is acknowledged under Article 2 subparag.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed as there is no ground, and the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, and it is so modified as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-woo

Judges Park Jong-tae