Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu 00 Gidodong 00

The representative of △

[Defendant-Appellant] Gyeong-gu et al.

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Youngdo-dong

[Representative] The representative director:

소송대리인 변호사 ▲▲

2. Maternity corporation;

서울 양천구 목동 ㅇㅇ

대표이사 ◁◁

Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant;

No broadcast of Bseball Classsic) “(4 dump)” shall be aired.

In full view of the purport of the records of this case, the applicant and the applicant for the above 206 World Cup Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant and the applicant for the above 206 World Co., Ltd.") did not participate in the 16th meeting and select the top four teams through the 16th meeting, and did not participate in the 16th meeting and relay the 2nd meeting of the Korea Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the above 16th meeting"), and the applicant and the respondent did not participate in the 16th meeting to relay the 1st meeting of the Korea Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (including the right to relay the 16th meeting of the Korea Broadcasting Co., Ltd.) to open the 6th meeting of the Korea Broadcasting Co., Ltd., which had been established by the 1st meeting of the 2nd meeting of the Korea Broadcasting Co., Ltd. and the 2nd meeting of the Korea Broadcasting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Broadcasting Co., Ltd.") to open the 2nd meeting.

2. Determination

In light of the above facts, it is difficult to deem that the applicant has sufficiently explained the respondent the right to seek a prohibition of broadcast of the above quasi-stoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptoptop to the applicant, and there are insufficient materials to deem that the applicant could cause irreparable damage to the applicant as the applicant would receive an advertisement on the premise of the exclusive broadcast right. However, when the provisional disposition of this case is issued, the respondent is unable to broadcast the above quasi-stoptoptoptop toptop toptoptop without consultation and degree with the applicant, and it is difficult to deem that there is sufficient proof as to the necessity to order the prohibition of broadcast of the above quasi-stoptopto

3. Conclusion

If so, the applicant's request against the respondent is insufficient to vindicate the right to be preserved and the necessity of preservation, and therefore, it is all dismissed.

Judges Clerks

Judge Lee Jin-hoon