손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The Plaintiff (former Co., Ltd.) (former Co., Ltd.) is the Chungcheong-si, Incheon-si, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Myeong-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, and the Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”)
Seoul E and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”)
(2) Defendant B is a CATV broadcasting business operator (SO) under Article 2 subparag. 3 (b) of the Broadcasting Act, whose broadcasting area covers Chungcheong-si, petitioner-si, Bocheon-gun, Bocheon-gun, and Young-dong-gun. Moreover, Defendant B is an affiliated company of an enterprise group F, and owns the shares of affiliated companies such as C, G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “stock company”) and H, and is a multiple CATV broadcasting business operator (Multi Symor, mO) who operates a CATV broadcasting business in eight broadcasting zones among eight CATV broadcasting zones nationwide, along with the said affiliated companies.
3) The specialized home shopping business entity among program providers (P) that supply programs to the Plaintiff and Defendant B to the same CATV broadcasting business entity, as the Plaintiff and Defendant B, is an affiliated company of an enterprise group F.
A) There are companies, K, etc., unlike general program providers, these home shopping business operators pay transmission fees to a CATV broadcasting business operator and provide information on their goods through the program channels of a CATV broadcasting business operator and sell products upon receiving orders. In other words, the structure of home shopping business operators is to use the program channels of a CATV broadcasting business operator by paying transmission fees to a CATV broadcasting business operator and using the program channels of a CATV broadcasting business operator. On the other hand, although C had been initially the Defendant on December 28, 2016, in which the instant lawsuit was pending, it was merged into Defendant B on December 28, 2016, and accordingly Defendant B took over the instant litigation proceedings.
B. Defendant B, such as the conclusion of a stock acquisition agreement, is 85.20% of the total number of shares issued by the Plaintiff.