시정명령취소
1. On September 14, 2017, the part of paragraphs 1 and 3 of the corrective order stated in the attached Form issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.
2...
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a program provider approved by the Minister of Science and ICT to engage in a program providing business engaged in specialized programming for product introduction and sale.
B. The viewers’ media foundation established by the Defendant under Article 90-2 of the Broadcasting Act, conducted a survey on 774 persons in charge of the business of the home shopping supplier in order to investigate the actual condition of the supply transaction of the home shopping market from May 9, 2016 to May 31, 2016, and reported the result of the survey to the Defendant on June 2016.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant survey”)
On November 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) notified the Plaintiff that he/she will conduct fact-finding investigations as to whether a prohibited act of the Broadcasting Act occurred in the Republic of Korea from June 2016 to October 2016; and (b) notified the Plaintiff that he/she will conduct fact-finding investigations as to whether the prohibited act of the Broadcasting Act was committed; (c) conducted the first on-site investigation from January 17, 2017 to January 20, 2017; and (d) conducted the second on-site investigation from February 27, 2017 to February 28, 2017.
(hereinafter “Fact-finding investigation of this case”). D.
As a result of examining the details of the Plaintiff’s prior video production cost on the goods (hereinafter “direct purchased goods”) directly purchased and sold by the supplier that directly bears the burden of prior video production cost of the goods that were directly purchased through the process of analyzing and verifying the details of broadcast programming, type of transaction, sales commission, production cost burden statement, broadcast condition agreement, prior video production-related documents, etc. broadcasted from June 1, 2016 through October 13, 2016 to October 2016, the Defendant conducted a survey on the details of the Plaintiff’s prior video production cost on the goods (hereinafter “direct purchased goods”). As a result, the Defendant: (a) conducted a survey on the details of the Plaintiff’s prior video production cost on the goods that were directly purchased from the supplier through the process of collecting and verifying the data from the Plaintiff; (b) the supplier shall bear 100% of the cost of prior video production; and (c) the supplier shall bear 35 items, including but not limited to, but not limited to, the B program broadcast aired in October 13, 2016.