[1] Whether it is permissible for a cable broadcasting business operator to operate a CATV broadcasting business under the Broadcasting Act, or to send the relevant signals to subscribers by using the cable broadcasting transmission facilities with signals from the cable broadcasting business operator (negative)

[2] The case holding that a relay cable broadcasting businessman's act of running a business of receiving signals from a person who is the party to the composite cable broadcasting and transmitting them again to subscribers under a contract concluded with the other party to the composite cable broadcasting businessman after inviting subscribers to the composite cable broadcasting violates the Broadcasting Act regardless of whether the said subscriber's business of imposing and receiving receiving fees

[1] Articles 2 and 9(2) of the Broadcasting Act / [2] Articles 2 and 9(2) of the Broadcasting Act

Return CATV Cable Broadcasting Corporation

Co., Ltd.

Busan High Court Order 2005Ra178 dated January 19, 2006

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. A CATV broadcasting business is a business of managing and operating CATV broadcasting stations (the entire facilities of the cable broadcasting stations to provide multi-channels and the employees thereof) and of transmitting and transmitting broadcasts by using transmission and line facilities. A CATV relay broadcasting business is a business of receiving and relaying terrestrial broadcasts, or satellite broadcasts, etc. conducted by the Korean Broadcasting System and by a broadcasting business operator established under the Special Act (see Article 2 of the Broadcasting Act). Article 9(2) of the Broadcasting Act provides that a person who intends to operate a CATV broadcasting business and a CATV relay broadcasting business shall obtain permission from the Minister of Information and Communication with facilities and technologies in compliance with the relevant standards upon the recommendation of the Korea Broadcasting Commission. In light of the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, it is not allowed for a CATV relay broadcasting business operator to operate a CATV broadcasting business, such as the invitation of subscribers, the transmission of new signals to its subscribers, and the collection of the fees from its subscribers, as well as the permission for transmitting the relevant signals to subscribers by using the CATV relay broadcasting facilities after a CATV relay broadcasting business operator installed separate from the relay transmission facilities.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the collaboration contract of this case between the re-appellant who is a relay cable broadcasting businessman and the other party who is a composite cable broadcasting businessman violates the Broadcasting Act, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Broadcasting Act, which affected the judgment, and thus,

2. The court below held that the re-appellant's act of excessive payment to the subscribers to the above composite cable broadcasting does not violate the Broadcasting Act only when the re-appellant and the counter-appellant maintain the cooperation contract of this case and the other party merely did it violate the Broadcasting Act. The court below held that the counter-appellant's act of receiving a receiving contract with the subscribers to the composite cable broadcasting service is merely an evasion of the law in the name of the other party's branch rather than by directly concluding the receiving fee and collecting it and counting it. In this judgment, the purport of rejecting the above argument is to include the Re-Appellant's act of rejecting the above argument. The re-appellant's act of transmitting to the subscribers to the above composite cable broadcasting service after receiving the signal from the counter-party under a contract concluded with the counter-party to the above composite cable broadcasting service provider after recruiting the subscribers to the cable cable broadcasting service provider and then transmitting it again to the subscribers to the above composite cable broadcasting service provider violates the Broadcasting Act regardless of whether the other party to the

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)