beta
(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.09.23 2015구합77813

시정명령 취소청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 30, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained approval for a general program providing business from the Defendant for the term of validity pursuant to Article 9(5) of the Broadcasting Act until March 31, 2014.

On March 19, 2014, before the expiration of the term of validity of the above approval, the Plaintiff received renewed approval from the Defendant pursuant to Article 17(2) of the Broadcasting Act. The main parts of the renewed approval conditions granted by the Defendant at the time of the renewed approval (hereinafter “instant renewed approval conditions”) are as follows.

1. To faithfully implement the business plan and obtain approval from the defendant where he/she intends to modify major contents of the business plan due to unavoidable grounds;

3. The business plan shall faithfully observe the annual content investment plan presented in the business plan and submit the performance record of the preceding year to the defendant by the end of January each year;

4. The person shall faithfully observe the ratio of re-protection presented in the business plan and submit the performance record for the preceding year to the defendant by the end of January each year

6. If the defendant intends to inspect the actual performance of the project plan, he/she shall actively cooperate in necessary matters, such as submission of data;

B. The Plaintiff entered KRW 161,226,00,000 as a content investment plan (self-production purchase) in the business plan (hereinafter “instant business plan”) submitted to the Defendant at the time of applying for renewal of approval, and KRW 49.5% as the re-protection ratio in 2014. However, the actual amount of the Plaintiff’s investment in the year 2014 was KRW 117,441,00,00 (72.8%) and the re-protection ratio in 2014 was 57.0%.

C. On July 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) based on Article 99(1)2 of the Broadcasting Act, submitted by the Plaintiff on July 30, 2015; (b) “Plaintiff” refers to the amount of nonperformance in the content investment plan in 2014, as set out in the business plan submitted at the time of application for renewal, to December 31, 2015, along with the amount of the content investment plan in 2015; and (c) was separately paid attention to prevent any occurrence of the same fact as the non-compliance with the re-compliance ratio in 2014.