시정명령처분 취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On March 30, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant for a general program providing business for three years in accordance with Article 9(5) of the Broadcasting Act.
On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff received renewed approval from the Defendant pursuant to Article 17(2) of the Broadcasting Act, which is before the term of validity of the initial approval expires. The main contents of the renewed approval conditions granted by the Defendant at the time of the renewed approval 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;
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 stated KRW 48,312,00,000 as a content investment plan (self-production purchase) in the business plan submitted to the Defendant at the time of applying for renewal of approval in 2014, but actually, the amount of content investment in the year 2014 was KRW 45,964,00,000 (95.1% compared to the business plan).
C. On July 30, 2015, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on the ground of Article 99(1)2 of the Broadcasting Act, stating that “The Plaintiff shall implement the unpaid amount of implementation in the content investment plan in 2014 presented in the business plan submitted at the time of application for renewal of approval by December 31, 2015, along with the amount of the content investment plan in 2015.”
(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 14, 21, 22, 26, 27 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s renewed approval condition that the Defendant gave to the Plaintiff is to faithfully comply with the annual content investment plan presented in the business plan, but to comply with 100% of the total amount.