Attorney Choi Jong-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

President of the Representative 000

Attorney Ansan-gu et al.

2. Where the respondent violates paragraph 1, the respondent shall pay 100,000 won per time to the applicant for each violation of paragraph 1.

3. The applicant's remaining main and other ancillary claims are all dismissed;

4. 2/3 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the claimant, and the remainder by the respondent, respectively.

In the program, "Refence Violence Cases, Kim President and North Chang-dong Clubs"

'Assaults against employees of the North Changdong club's clubs and ‘mudio employees' cases, etc.

It shall not broadcast coverage-related coverage-related contents, and the content of coverage

Delivery, lease, transfer, or any other disposition of the films, etc. recorded to a third party;

the Respondent, and if the Respondent violates this, the Respondent shall not

The number of offenses shall be paid one hundred million won per time.

Preliminary purport of the Preliminary Claim: KBS - 2TV scheduled to broadcast at least 05 on May 9, 2007

In the program, “the suspicion cases of retaliation assault, seeing investigation, or organizational concealment.”

The applicant, including the applicant and the officer, for the case of assault against employees of the North Changdong club as a part of the authorization.

The contents of the processed coverage shall not be broadcasted, and the contents of the coverage shall be recorded therein.

Delivery, lease, transfer, or any other disposition of films, etc. to a third party;

and if the respondent violates it, the frequency of the violation shall be applied to the applicant.

The sum of KRW 100 million per time shall be paid.

In full view of the purport of the entire examination of the records of this case, the following facts are substantiated.

A. The applicant is the representative director of the Handong Co., Ltd., and the respondent is a terrestrial broadcasting business operator established as a national key broadcasting under Article 43 of the Broadcasting Act, and operates the KSBS 2 television (KS 2TV) while carrying out the business of operating broadcasting and installing, operating, and managing broadcasting facilities.

B. The respondent reconvened the case based on the victim's statement, witness's investigation, and police's investigation report, etc. - The respondent did not confirm the CCTV screen installed in the North Changdong House, the above case was transferred to the South Korea Police Agency, 20 days before the above transfer, 30 days before the execution of the sentence, 4 days before the enforcement of the Korean National Police Agency's 20 days after the request of the Korean National Police Agency, 20 days after the request of the Korean National Police Agency to investigate the case of the applicant's assault, 3 days after the request of the victim, 4 days after the request of the Korean National Police Agency to prohibit the use of the program of this case, 2 days after the request of the Korean National Police Agency to investigate the applicant's assault and the applicant's response to the above case, and 4 days after the request of the Korean National Police Agency to prohibit the use of the program of this case.

2. Applicant's assertion

The Claimant argues that the program of this case consists of unfair and biased contents that only reflect the opinion of a party claiming that the Claimant is the victim, thereby impairing the honor of the Claimant and infringing the privacy of the Claimant. The Claimant is currently under investigation and there is a trial on the issuance of a detention warrant to the Claimant. If the program of this case distorted facts are broadcasted disadvantageous to the Claimant, the Claimant may exert unfair influence on the investigation and trial due to aggravation of public opinion, etc., and the program of this case is contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence under the Constitution by forming contents on the premise that the Claimant violated the law, and the public interest necessity of the Claimant to be broadcasted is not recognized. In order to prevent in advance significant damage to the Claimant caused by the broadcast of the program of this case, the Claimant is sought a provisional disposition such as the statement in the purport of the application.

3. Determination

(a) the right to be preserved and the need for conservation;

The freedom of broadcasting in a democratic state should be guaranteed to the maximum as an important constitutional right that performs an essential function of creating and maintaining democratic order by gathering the majority opinion through free formation and delivery of public opinion by guaranteeing the provision of value information and the free circulation of information.

However, when the respondent broadcasts the program of this case containing the same contents as the attached list, it is true that the applicant has committed an assault against the viewers, and the applicant may raise the appearance that the applicant does not seem to have any reflective color, such as denying the charge of the crime of the assault and filing an application for a provisional injunction against broadcasting, which is sufficiently anticipated that the applicant would thereby incur irreparable damage to the reputation. This goes beyond the scope of protection of freedom of the press because it constitutes a case where the reputation is damaged by a report which is not based on objective facts, and it is difficult to recover if the reputation is damaged due to the above contents, and in light of the fact that many time, effort and expenses are needed, it is necessary to protect the program of this case in order to avoid significant damage to the continuing relation of rights and duties or prevent any imminent danger. Thus, the respondent shall not broadcast the program of this case in accordance with the same contents as the attached list.

In addition, the applicant sought an issuance of a provisional disposition such as the purport of the application beyond the scope stated in the attached list, but the applicant appears to be able to comply with the request by ordering the respondent to prohibit broadcast on the content stated in the attached list. Since the freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, it cannot be completely restricted and may be restricted only within the necessary minimum range by specifying the prohibited act in detail. The applicant is seeking a wide range of prohibition of broadcast without clarifying the scope of prohibition, and it is likely that the respondent's freedom of speech may be infringed upon if accepting it. The applicant does not find unfair and biased contents as expressed in the contents of the program of this case so far as there is concern about the applicant in the contents of the program of this case, and it is not likely that the broadcast of the program of this case would affect the applicant in the future investigation and trial. Accordingly, the remaining part of the applicant's request is rejected.

B. In the case of the obligation imposed on the respondent by the decision of provisional disposition of this case because it is difficult to see that the respondent has an alternative nature, in order to secure effectiveness of the decision of provisional disposition of this case, indirect compulsory execution is ordered without any other method of compulsory execution except the order of indirect compulsory execution. However, considering various circumstances indicated in the records of this case, such as the content of the order of provisional disposition of this case, the possibility of the respondent being in violation, the possibility of the respondent being in violation of it, and the difficulty of damage and recovery of damage, it is reasonable to determine that the compensation amount

4. Conclusion

Thus, the applicant's application is justified because it is proved within the scope of the above recognition that the preservation right and the necessity of preservation are well-grounded, and the remaining application is dismissed as there is no justifiable reason.

May 9, 2007

Judge Kang Jong-soo

Judges Kim Jong-tae