207Kahap830 Broadcast Prohibition Provisional Disposition

100

Law Firm Pacific (Law Firm Pacific)

Attorney Kang Dong-chul, and recent years

1. Reading broadcasting as an incorporated foundation;

Representative Director 000

2. SPSA:

Representative Director 000

Respondent Law Firm Bosch Rexroth, Counsel for the respondent-appellant

Attorney Shin Dong-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

May 2, 2007

1. Subject to the condition that the applicant deposits daily worth (100,000,000) for the respondent or submits a payment guarantee consignment agreement document containing the above amount as the insured amount, the respondent shall not broadcast and report the contents in the separate sheet.

2. Where the respondent violates paragraph 1, the respondent shall pay 10,00,000 won each time to the applicant for each violation of paragraph 1.

3. All remaining claims against the respondent are dismissed.

4. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Claimant, and the remainder by the Respondent, respectively.

1. With respect to the US ASI Co.., the respondent is between the applicant and 000,000.

Broadcasting and report relating to any conversation or recording or recording of any monetary content;

subsection (1) of this section.

2. Where a respondent makes a broadcast or report in violation of paragraph (1), the respondent shall each applicant;

10,000,000 won shall be paid for each broadcast or news report in violation of this section.

1. Basic facts

In full view of the purport of the entire examination of the records of this case, the following facts are substantiated.

A. The applicant is a joint representative director (2006. 206. 2006. 2006. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3

11.8. Resignation of the above company (including specially related persons, 56. 56%) as the largest shareholder of the above company, the representative director and the chairman of the board board of directors, the respondent foundation, and the respondent, the Respondent, as the radio terrestrial broadcasting business operator, are the 6th shareholder (5. 36%) of the light broadcast, and the Respondent CFSia Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") is the Respondent as the subsidiary company of the Respondent Broadcasting, and the Respondent News Co., Ltd., as the Respondent's Internet portal site of the news news news (www. nocutnenes. co. co. co. co. kr) and the CBS TV broadcasting and TV integrated website (www. cb. kr. w. w. c. c. c. c. r.) operate.

B. 000 (Dismissal on November 8, 2006) that was a joint representative director of light broadcasting, together with the applicant, was a joint representative director (Dismissal on November 8, 2006) shall be October 2006.

31. The National Assembly of Culture and Tourism Commission appeared as a witness of the inspection of state administration of the Korea Broadcasting Commission of the National Assembly, and the applicant instructed the applicant to prepare documents containing information about the principal's domestic political situation and North Korean trends, etc. in English and sent them to the United States. The applicant prepared eight documents concerning the domestic political situation and North Korean trends, etc., and the applicant testified that "if the applicant disclosed national information in the manner above and it is so wide as to be taken against three and four times in Korea and abroad, the applicant who was present as a witness of the inspection of state administration of the National Assembly." The applicant testified that he denies the contents of the above testimony of 00.

C. From October 31, 2006 to April 2007, the respondent collected national information on behalf of the United States and reported it to the information authorities of the United States for a total of 80 years. The respondent reported 00 to 00 that "it was confirmed that the applicant had leaked national information through the promotion tape of the applicant recorded on October 2006." (hereinafter referred to as "the report of this case").

D. The National Assembly Culture and Tourism Committee on 000 and the applicant’s testimony on the authenticity and correctness of the National Assembly’s testimony

12.4. As a result of the investigation, the prosecutor ordered the applicant to prepare documents on April 5, 2007 as a result of the investigation, and concluded that "It is recognized that the applicant made a speech in English, but there is no evidence to prove that the applicant sent documents to a foreign country and operated the information team and was threatening to receive retaliation if it is excessive."

2. The parties' assertion

A. Applicant's assertion

Although the applicant did not act as the U.S. intelligence source, the respondent makes broadcast and report by putting the malicious trend that the applicant leaked national information on behalf of the U.S., and the applicant and the respondent have conflict with the management right of the light broadcast. The respondent continues to make a malicious report for the purpose of slandering the applicant at the intent of making the applicant’s broadcasting business unaffording and neglecting the lead right of the light broadcast. However, the respondent asserts that the report of this case constitutes defamation by publicly alleging false facts and the broadcast is transferred as a means to conceal the interest of the broadcasting company by losing objectivity and fairness, and sought a provisional disposition such as the purport of the application, in order to prevent in advance the occurrence of significant damage that is difficult to recover from the applicant due to the report of this case.

B. Respondent's assertion

On the other hand, the respondent asserts that the content of the instant report was true and that the respondent only made the instant report for the public interest.

3. Determination

The freedom of broadcasting in a democratic country should be guaranteed to the maximum as an important constitutional right that performs an essential function to create and maintain democratic order by gathering the majority opinion through the free formation and delivery of public opinion by guaranteeing the provision of value information and the free circulation of information, and thereby satisfying the people's right to know. However, the freedom of broadcasting in a democratic country has a constitutional limit that does not impair others' honor.

In light of the records as to the developments leading up to the report of this case by the respondent, first, on September 12, 2006, 000: (a) notified on September 12, 2006 to the 000 representative director of the Respondent CFSA that the applicant was making a U.S. Information Nom. Information Nom., and (b) delivered the documents to the Respondent’s instructions and received from the Respondent; (c) the Respondent’s executive officers reviewed this and concluded that the applicant had made a U.S. Information Nom., and concluded that the Respondent had made a contract with the Respondent’s information Nom. of the U.S., and the Respondent’s executive officers were the opportunity to testify at the inspection site of the state administration; and (d) the Respondent had contacted the prosecution, the National Intelligence Service

10. In light of the above facts, it is clear that the applicant and the respondent did not have any personal rights for 16. 16. 16. 2. Then, the respondent did not have any personal rights for 1. 2. 1. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 2. 1. 2. 2. 2. 1. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2. Appellant. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. . .. ..... 1. . .. .. . . . . . ............................... ... . .......... ............ . .. . ........... . ................. .................................................. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

In addition, with respect to the part for which the applicant requests the issuance of a provisional disposition, such as the statement in the purport of the application, by opening the scope of the attached list to the respondent and ordering the respondent to prohibit broadcast and report on the contents stated in the attached list, the applicant's request can be achieved. Since the freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, it cannot be completely restricted and prohibited acts can be limited within the necessary minimum range by specifying the prohibited acts in detail. The applicant is seeking the prohibition of broad broadcast and report without clearly specifying the scope of the prohibition, and thus, it is likely that the respondent's freedom of speech may be infringed upon if accepting it. Therefore, all remaining part of the request against the respondent is rejected.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the applicant's petition against the respondent is clearly explained within the scope of the above recognition and the need for preservation is reasonable, and all of them are accepted as a condition of providing security, and the remainder of the petition is dismissed as it is without merit.

Justices Park Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant

Judgment of the court below

Judges Kim Kim Kim-young

A person shall be appointed.