The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, an administrative agency’s act can be subject to appeal litigation cannot be determined abstractly and generally, and a decision should be made individually, taking into account the content and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form, and procedure of the act, the substantial relation between the act and the disadvantage suffered by the interested parties such as the other party, etc., the principle of administration by the rule of law, the attitude of interested parties

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7321, Jun. 10, 201). An act that does not directly cause legal changes in the legal status of the other party or other interested persons, such as acts, intermediation, solicitation, and de facto notification, within an administrative agency, is not subject to an appeal litigation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du3500, Apr. 24, 2008). The lower court, on the following grounds, determined that the instant notice broadcasting order constitutes a non-power factual act with only a recommending effect, and does not constitute an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation.

In other words, the plaintiff's notification broadcasting obligation is not the defendant's notification broadcasting order, but based on Article 100 (4) of the Broadcasting Act.

The sanctions of fines for negligence under Article 108 (1) 27 of the Broadcasting Act are sanctions against non-performance of the obligation to notify and broadcast under Article 100 (4) of the Broadcasting Act, not sanctions against non-performance of the obligation to notify and broadcast under Article 100 (4) of the Broadcasting Act.

Unlike a disciplinary measure order, there is no provision on the opportunity to state opinions and the request for reexamination in the case of a notice broadcasting order, and in light of the fact that the method of appeal is not stated in the written decision of this case, the defendant's intention is more specific contents and method of the notice broadcasting than directly imposing the plaintiff a notice broadcasting obligation on the plaintiff through the notice broadcasting order.