(영문) 대구고등법원 2011.9.23.선고 2011누786 판결

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection of a summary application such as the one-day newspaper against the plaintiff on April 12, 2010 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the part of "judgments from 2.15 to 3.15 of the judgment of the court of first instance" as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

C. Determination

(1) The purpose of the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, etc. is to contribute to the extension of the freedom of the press and the formation of democratic public opinion by guaranteeing the freedom and independence of publication of newspapers, etc., enhancing the social responsibility thereof, and supporting and fostering the newspaper industry (Article 1). In addition, in a case where a person who registered a newspaper, etc. has registered by false or other unlawful means, the purpose or contents of the newspaper, etc. are significantly and repeatedly violated the registered publication purpose or contents of the newspaper, etc., or where the contents of the newspaper, etc. have seriously and repeatedly violated the public morals or social ethics by publishing an obscene newspaper, etc., the person who registered the newspaper, etc. may file a petition with the court for adjudication on the cancellation of registration (Article 22(2)).

In a case where it is obvious that the registration may be refused if the registration is in violation of the law or is likely to undermine social order (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu13286 delivered on April 24, 1998).

(2) In the case of this case, when considering the overall purport of the oral argument in Eul evidence No. 1, the company B newspaper company, which published a daily newspaper under the title of "one newspaper in Daegu region for a long time," can be recognized as having applied for trademark registration on June 18, 1970. According to this, the company B newspaper, the plaintiff applied for the registration of newspaper business, is not only completely identical with the trademark registered by B newspaper company, but also if the plaintiff permitted the publication of newspaper under the title of "one newspaper," the above "one newspaper," is similar to the above "one newspaper," and thus, it is likely that the general public may cause misconception and confusion with the issuer of the newspaper (the defendant accepted the plaintiff's application for registration of magazine business under the title of "Tgu on March 11, 2010".

(B) Examining the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 30, 31, and Eul evidence 4 through 36 (including virtual lot numbers in the case of virtual numbers), the plaintiff registered K Day and K Newspaper on December 29, 2010, and reported the closure of business on March 2, 201 where six months have not yet passed since the previous K Day and K Newspaper were registered, and the previous K Day changed its No. 30.com to the "K Day.com" and the plaintiff could not return to the above newspaper as the first day after the consultation with the plaintiff on March 20, 2011, which had not been registered as the first day after the date of the issuance of the newspaper to the maximum extent possible, and the plaintiff did not receive an application for the registration of the newspaper as the first day after the issuance of the newspaper as the first day, which had not been registered as the "New Day" until 20 days after the registration of the newspaper as the first day, which had not been registered as the first day after the date of the issuance of the newspaper.

(C) Even if there are circumstances, allowing the Plaintiff to file an application for registration of the newspaper business title of this case should be deemed not only as a violation of the title of the newspaper publication with the aim of contributing to the extension of the freedom of the press and the formation of democratic public opinion, but also as a concern that the social order may be significantly harmed.

(3) Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case which refused to apply for registration of newspaper business title by considering the above circumstances is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion disputing this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.