시정명령 취소
1. The corrective order stated in the attached Form issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on September 14, 2017 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
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”)
The Defendant, on November 16, 2016, notified the Plaintiff that he/she will conduct a fact-finding investigation as to whether a prohibited act of the Broadcasting Act has been committed against seven TV home shopping merchants in the Republic of Korea. On November 16, 2016, the Defendant conducted a fact-finding investigation as to whether the prohibited act of the Broadcasting Act has been committed from June 2016 to October 2016, and conducted a fact-finding investigation as to the Plaintiff from January 12, 2016 to June 2017, the first on-site investigation from January 10 to January 13, 2017, the second on-site investigation from March 13, 2017, the third on-site investigation from March 15, 2017 to March 17, 2017, and the second on-site investigation from March 28, 2017 to March 29, 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”) that were directly purchased and sold by the supplier that was directly responsible for inventory through the process of analysis and verification of the Plaintiff’s data, such as the content of broadcast programming, type of transaction, sales commission, production cost burden statement, broadcast condition agreement, prior video production-related documents, etc. broadcasted from June 2016 to October 2016. As a result, the Defendant examined the Plaintiff’s prior video production cost of the goods (hereinafter “direct purchased goods”) which were directly purchased by the supplier and sold through the process of analysis and verification from the Plaintiff. B program C and 35 items broadcasted from June 101 to October 201, 100% of the costs of prior video production by the supplier.