1. The Defendant’s disposition in attached Form 1 against the Plaintiff on September 14, 2017 is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Details of the disposition

The plaintiff is a program provider approved by the Minister of Science and ICT with respect to a program providing business that specializes in specialized programming of product introduction and sale (hereinafter referred to as " home shopping business operator").

From May 9, 2016 to May 31, 2016, the viewers’ media foundation implemented a survey on 774 persons in charge of the supplier’s business (hereinafter “instant fact-finding survey”) to investigate the actual condition of transactions in the home shopping market, and reported the result of the survey to the Defendant around June 2016.

The Defendant conducted a fact-finding investigation (from December 2016 to June 2017) and three on-site investigations to determine the period of investigation for seven home shopping business entities, including the Plaintiff, from June 2016 to October 2016, to confirm whether the prohibited acts under the Broadcasting Act have been committed.

(hereinafter “Fact-finding of the instant case”). 1. Transfer of the cost of the production of a prior image

A. The Plaintiff committed an act of charging the cost of prior film production for the goods directly purchased by the supplier and sold goods directly to the supplier (hereinafter “direct purchased goods”) 8 items (excluding direct cans and garbage bags, and 7 items, which were aired on August 17, 2016). The Plaintiff charged the supplier with the entire cost of prior film production.

This constitutes an act of unfairly transferring production costs, and thus, Article 85-2 (1) 7 of the Broadcasting Act and Article 63-5 [Attachment 2-3] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

VII. It is considered to violate subparagraph 3.

B. Although the Plaintiff failed to prepare a broadcast agreement on the burden of the cost of producing a prior image, the Plaintiff did not specify the subject of the cost of producing a prior image in a broadcast condition agreement, etc., it is found that there is no relevant provision and the system is incomplete, and that Article 85-2 (1) 7 of the Broadcasting Act and Article 63-5 [Attached Table 2-3] of

VII. It is difficult to deem that a person violated subparagraph 3.

However, the relevant provisions shall be included in the Broadcasting Conditions Agreements.