2014 Doz. 43866 Damage compensation

1. The Korea Broadcasting System;

2. Cultural broadcasting of stock companies;

3. SPS Co., Ltd.

E. E.C.C.

July 10, 2015

August 21, 2015

1. The defendant shall pay each of the plaintiffs 400,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from September 6, 2014 to August 21, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/2 shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay each of the plaintiffs 80 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) The Plaintiff Korea Broadcasting System (hereinafter “Plaintiff KBS”) is a national broadcasting company established under Article 43 of the Broadcasting Act, and the Plaintiff’s cultural broadcasting company (hereinafter “Plaintiff MBC”) and the Plaintiff SBS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff SBS”) are terrestrial broadcasting business operators established under Article 2 subparag. 3 and Article 9(1) of the Broadcasting Act for the purpose of broadcasting business and cultural service business.

2) The Defendant also is a general programming program provider established under Article 2 Subparag. 3 and Article 9(5) of the Broadcasting Act for the purpose of broadcasting business, etc.

B. Implementation of predicted research on the Plaintiffs’ results of local elections in 2014

1) On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiffs agreed with the Korea Broadcasting Association on the 6th nationwide local election (hereinafter “instant election”) which will be held on June 4, 2014, to organize a joint forecast investigation committee for broadcasting companies, and to jointly implement the “predicting and surveying of the candidates” for the instant election ballot counting.

2) After that, around April 2014, the Broadcasting Company Joint Forecasting Investigation Committee, including the Plaintiffs, concluded a 6th regional election forecast and research service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) between three research and research institutions, including the Slive Down Media Bookbook Co., Ltd., and the main contents thereof are as follows.

제6회 지방선거 예측조사 용역계약○ 계약건명 : 제6회 동시지방선거 시도지사 및 교육감 당선자 예측조사○ 계약금액 : 金 이십사억원정 (₩2,400,000,000원, VAT 별도)제1조 (조사의 범위와 내용)① '을(위 3개 조사연구기관)이 '갑'(방송사 공동예측조사위원회)에게 제공할 조사용역의 범위와 내용은 다음과 같다.▷ 조사 내용 : (1) 시도지사 선거 당선자 예측(2) 교육감 선거 당선자 예측▷ 조사 규모 : (1) 전화조사 표본수 : 41,000표본(2) 출구조사 투표소 수 : 648개 투표소제2조 (결과보고 및 결과물 제출)'을'은 '갑'의 요구에 따른 결과보고를 다음과 같이 지정한 일시에 '갑'에게 제출한다.▷ 중간 보고 : '갑'이 속하는 방송 3사의 합의에 따른다.▷ 최종 예측결과 보고 : 6월 4일(水), 17시 30분 限제6조 (보안 기밀유지 및 조사결과의 귀속)① 동 조사자료 및 결과물의 권리는 '갑'에게 귀속되며, '을'은 동 조사를 수행하면서 취득한일체의 자료를 '갑'의 사전승인 없이 제3자에게 공개하거나 양도할 수 없다.② '갑'과 '을'은 조사결과의 기밀 유지에 대한 의무를 지닌다.③ '을'의 고의 또는 과실로 인해 조사결과 기밀이 대외적으로 유출되어 ‘갑'의 명예와 위상을 실추시키고, 실제 선거 판세에 영향을 미치게 되었다고 볼 상당한 이유가 있을 경우,기밀을 누출한 '을'의 해당 조사회사는 각 사별 계약금액 해당분의 50%의 위약벌을 부과함은 물론, 별도로 이와 관련한 모든 민·형사상 법적 책임을 부담한다.

3) In addition, on April 24, 2014, the Plaintiffs entered into a “written commitment to maintaining confidentiality” (hereinafter “written commitment”) with respect to the predicted research results to be acquired through the instant service contract. The key contents are as follows.

On June 4, 2014, 1. KBS, MBC, and SBS (hereinafter referred to as "third company") on June 6, 2014, respectively, shall not be leaked to a third party without prior agreement, regardless of any information obtained in the course of business, as each subject jointly conducting a joint forecast and investigation of the 'party estimate and investigation' of the 6th nationwide local election. 2. In particular, as a joint asset that must be strictly kept confidential as a result of the withdrawal investigation announced on the election day, the three companies cannot be leaked to a third party until the voting is completed, regardless of the intention, negligence, and form of data. 7. (m) In relation to the violation of the above agreement, even three companies may request the subject who violated the agreement by presenting objective evidentiary materials, and as soon as the alleged violation has been paid to KEP joint investigation committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'EP').

4) Accordingly, on June 4, 2014, the said three research institutes conducted a forecast and investigation (hereinafter “instant forecast and investigation”) on the phone number of 41,00 samples and the opening and exit investigation of 648 polling stations regarding the instant election, and delivered the results thereof to the Plaintiffs around 17:30 on the same day.

C. Acquisition and broadcasting of the Defendant’s forecast and investigation result of the instant case

1) Meanwhile, on June 4, 2014, around 17:32, 2014, the reporters belonging to the Defendant obtained the results of the instant predicted investigation through the dialogue of the mobile phone 'MamapPP’ used by nine reporters including themselves, and thereafter reported this to the Director-General of the Report to which the Defendant belongs.

2) From June 4, 2014, the Defendant started to broadcast the instant ballot counting from around 18:00:00 to around 00, the Defendant first announced the result of self-predicting and investigating the election for the head of a four metropolitan organizations. From around 18:0:49 to from around 18:0:49, the Defendant broadcasted the outcome of the instant forecast and investigation, starting to broadcast the 1, 2-class candidates for Seoul Market Election and their respective expected return rates.

D. Broadcasting of the Plaintiffs’ forecast results

1) As from June 4, 2014, the Plaintiffs began to broadcast the instant election ballot counting from 18:00:00, and disclosed the outcome of the instant predicted survey. The specific form of disclosure that the Defendant started to disclose the outcome of the instant predicted survey is as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

2) Accordingly, in the case of Plaintiff MBC, the results of the instant forecast survey could be made public in sequence than the Defendant. However, in the case of Plaintiff KBS and SBS, the results of the instant forecast survey were made public later than the Defendant.

E. The plaintiffs' objection and the defendant's response

1) On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant through the broadcast screen from the time when 40 seconds elapsed since the completion of the instant local election, which was prepared in advance by the Defendant, from the time when 40 seconds passed since the end of the instant local election, were planned to obtain the outcome of the instant forecast and investigation, and were determined to have used it without permission. The Plaintiffs sent an official letter stating that “the time of acquisition, route, etc. of the outcome of the instant forecast and investigation is explained.”

2) Around June 26, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiffs an official document stating that “The Defendant reported the result of self-predicting investigation after June 4, 2014, which was the closing date of the voting, to the effect that “the Defendant has not reported it first at the time when the Plaintiffs did not report it,” and that “the Defendant reported it first at the time when the Plaintiffs did not report it.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute or do not clearly dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 8, and 12 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) In order to obtain the result of the prediction and investigation of this case, the Plaintiffs paid the expense of KRW 2.4 billion. The Defendant obtained the result of the prediction and investigation of this case by unlawful means from the point of time of the instant election ballot counting to 30 minutes before the due date, and without the Plaintiffs’ prior consent or permission, disclosed the result of the prediction and investigation of this case earlier than the Plaintiffs at the same time or any part of the Plaintiffs.

2) The above Defendant’s act constitutes an unlawful act of infringing the Plaintiffs’ economic interests by using the outcome made by considerable investment or effort of the Plaintiffs for their own business without permission in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order, and constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) and a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act.

3) Furthermore, the Defendant’s above act acquired and disclosed the result of the instant predicted investigation that constitutes the Plaintiffs’ trade secrets by improper means, and constitutes a trade secret infringement under Article 2 subparag. 3(a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

4) Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay 800,000,000 won each to the Plaintiffs as compensation for damages caused by the above unfair competitive act (i.e., expenses of 2.,4 billion won incurred by the Plaintiffs in obtaining the predicted investigation result of the instant case: 3) and damages for delay.

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) Regarding the unfair competition act and claim of tort under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

① The Defendant obtained the results of the instant forecast and investigation as part of the lawful news gathering activities in accordance with the practices of the media community; ② Around 18:00:00 on the same day, the Defendant first disclosed the results of the instant forecast and investigation for the convenience of comparison, and indicated that the results of the instant forecast and investigation are “terrestrial exit investigation” when disclosing the results of the instant forecast and investigation for the convenience of comparison; ③ the time when the disclosure was made after the Plaintiff MBC disclosed the results of the instant forecast and investigation; and ③ the Defendant’s acquisition and disclosure of the results of the instant forecast and investigation do not constitute an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(j) of the Unfair Competition

2) As to the assertion of infringement of trade secrets under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

A) ① On June 4, 2014, the instant forecast and investigation revealed that the Defendant’s side obtained it through the mobile phone Messenger, and the remaining eight reporters using the said Messenger, and their media companies were known to the public, and ② was first disclosed to the public through Plaintiff MBC before the Defendant’s disclosure. As such, the Defendant already lost its secrecy at the time of its acquisition and disclosure.

B) Even according to the Plaintiffs’ assertion, the Plaintiffs did not obtain advertising profit or any other profit-making result of the instant forecast and investigation. Thus, the outcome of the instant forecast and investigation is not economically useful.

C) The Defendant could easily obtain the results of the instant forecast investigation in accordance with the press practices at the time. In light of this, it cannot be deemed that the instant forecast investigation results were in a state of keeping them confidential by considerable efforts.

D) The result of the instant forecast and investigation was obtained through legitimate news gathering activities according to the press practice, and was disclosed through legitimate news reporting procedures.

E) Therefore, the result of the prediction and investigation of this case does not constitute trade secret under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and the defendant's act of obtaining and disclosing the result of the prediction and investigation of this case does not constitute trade secret infringement under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

3) Claim as to damages

Even if the defendant's above act constitutes an unfair competition act, it did not cause any damage to the plaintiffs, and rather, the defendant obtained the benefit that the result of the predicted investigation in this case is widely known by the defendant, and thus, the defendant's liability for damages against the plaintiffs cannot be recognized.

3. Determination as to the occurrence of liability for damages

A. Determination as to whether an act of unfair competition under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and a tort under the Civil Act constitutes an illegal act

1) Criteria for determination

An act of using the outcomes of considerable effort and investment made by a competitor without permission for one’s own business in violation of business ethics, fair competition order, and order, thereby gaining unjust profits by taking advantage of the competitor’s efforts and investment, and infringing on the competitor’s legal interests worthy of protection, constitutes an act of unfair competition under the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2008Ma1541, Aug. 25, 2010; Supreme Court Order 2010Da20044, Mar. 29, 2012). Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 1(j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 2013) provides that “any other act of infringing on other person’s economic interests by using the outcomes, etc. made by another person’s considerable investment or effort for one’s own business without permission in a manner contrary to fair trade practice, competition order, and competition order.”

2) In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned determination criteria, the following circumstances revealed by adding up the basic facts as well as the purport of the entire oral arguments as well as macroscopic evidence, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act of obtaining and disclosing the result of the instant predicted investigation constitutes an act of unfair competition under Article 2 subparag. 1(j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and at the same time constitutes an act of unfair competition under Article 750 of the Civil Act by using the result of the Plaintiff’s considerable investment and effort for one’s own business without permission in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order.

A) The Plaintiffs spent a large amount of KRW 2.4 billion to obtain the information that is the result of the instant forecast and investigation. During that process, the Plaintiffs made considerable investment and efforts to create and maintain value by concluding a letter of performance of the instant case among them to maintain confidentiality. The result of the instant forecast and investigation constitutes a benefit that is legally protected.

B) However, the Defendant did not contribute to the process of creating the outcome of the prediction and investigation of the instant case, but obtained it immediately before the instant election ballot-counting through mobile phone Meet, which is private-use by the Defendant’s reporter. This goes against the fair competition order.

The defendant asserts that it is a legitimate coverage activity according to the practice. However, when considering the background or expenses that the plaintiffs received as a result of the prediction and investigation in this case, it is reasonable to deem that the competitor is a normal method to obtain it or to obtain it only through the disclosure of the plaintiffs prior to the disclosure of the plaintiffs. The evidence submitted by the defendants alone is sufficient to regard the defendants' acquisition of it as a legitimate coverage activity as a practice in the press, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C) Meanwhile, the information value, which is the result of the instant forecast and investigation, is extremely sensitive at the time of disclosure due to its nature. The time when the Defendant disclosed the result of the instant forecast and investigation, is very close to the time when the Plaintiff MBC disclosed it from the time when it was made public, and as to some of the voting results in certain regions, it was made public prior to Plaintiff KBS and SBS, and such result also goes against the fair competition order.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that it is a legitimate quotation report stating that it is a "terrestrial exit investigation". However, in light of the timing of disclosure, the defendant has gained more superior effects than the plaintiff MBC, and it is reasonable to view that even if the defendant has indicated in advance that it is the plaintiffs, it is merely a formal one. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant has made a quotation report by a legitimate method, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently.

D) Furthermore, in the event such behavior continues, media companies including the plaintiffs, etc. have no incentive to create information, such as the results of the prediction and investigation of this case, and have no incentive to maintain its value by taking more costs and effort (for this reason, there may be concerns that the right of citizens to know may be infringed). In light of this, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's acquisition and disclosure of the results of the prediction and investigation of this case constitutes an unfair competition act and a tort.

B. Determination as to whether the act constitutes a trade secret infringement under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

1) Whether the outcome of the instant forecast and investigation constitutes trade secrets

Trade secrets refer to the methods of production and sale, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which are not known to the public (non-public) and have independent economic value (economic usefulness), and are maintained in secret by considerable effort (confidentially managed), and are examined as to whether the results of the prediction and investigation in this case constitute trade secrets in light of the above criteria.

A) Whether the result of the instant forecast and investigation is widely known (non-publically known)

(1) The phrase “patent not known to the public” refers to the fact that the information is not known to many and unspecified persons because it is not known to the public by means of a publication, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12835, Oct. 14, 2010). Furthermore, a trade secret does not mean an absolute secret, but does not mean a trade secret, and even if a limited scope of a person is known, it is a secret to the extent that the restriction is maintained by the duty of confidentiality.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the result of the instant forecast investigation was in a state of not known to the public until the Defendant obtained it and disclosed it to the public.

① When entering into the instant service contract with the investigating agency, the Plaintiffs inserted a provision for the maintenance of security regarding the results of the instant predicted survey, and managed the results of the instant predicted survey, such as entering into the instant performance memorandum that imposes the duty of mutual confidentiality on the Plaintiffs, thereby managing them as confidential, which was not known to the general public until the Plaintiffs disclosed them.

② In regard to this, the Defendant alleged that the other media companies at the time when the Defendant obtained the result of the instant forecast and investigation via mobile phone Messenssenssenssenssen from the same method had already lost its impartiality. However, other media companies including the Defendant also appear not to be open to the public at that time. However, in light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the outcome of the instant forecast and investigation continues to have been kept confidential, and thus, it cannot be said that the existence of the limitation was extinguished solely on the grounds that the result of the instant forecast and investigation was disclosed within the limited scope, as alleged by the Defendant.

③ Furthermore, even if the Defendant disclosed the results of the Plaintiff MBC’s forecast and investigation, the interval is extremely close to the third second and is substantially simultaneously made public. In addition, in some areas, the result is first made public than the Plaintiff KBS and SBS, and in light of this, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s non-public nature was extinguished even at the time of the announcement of the results of the instant forecast and investigation.

B) Whether the outcome of the instant forecast and investigation has independent economic value (economic usefulness)

(1) The fact that a person who has an independent economic value as a trade secret refers to the fact that a person who possesses the information may benefit from competition to a competitor through the use of the information, or that a considerable cost or effort is needed for the acquisition or development of the information (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2981, May 24, 2013). Thus, it should be deemed that there is usefulness of the information, such as the information that is not actually used, but could exert an economic value in the future.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that the outcome of the prediction investigation of this case is economically useful in light of the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Plaintiffs paid a large amount of money equivalent to KRW 2.4 billion to obtain the result of the prediction investigation of this case, ② the Plaintiffs may have a superior status compared to the competitors including the Defendant by preferentially disclosing the results of the prediction investigation of this case to the public, and ③ the possibility that the opportunity for the Plaintiffs may increase the opportunity for the benefit of creating profits compared to the future competitors is also sufficient. Although the Plaintiffs did not obtain the result of the prediction investigation of this case from a large amount of money for the purpose of gaining the advertisement profit of the party, it is not different even if the Plaintiffs did not obtain the result of the prediction investigation of this case from a large amount of money.

C) Whether the result of the forecast and investigation of the instant case was information that was kept confidential by considerable effort (confidentially managed)

(1) “Keeping the information confidential by considerable effort” refers to a situation in which it is recognizable that information is maintained and managed objectively as confidential, such as making or notifying a person who may access the information, restricting access to the information, or imposing a duty to maintain confidentiality on the person who access the information, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da42570, Nov. 10, 201).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed in addition to the overall purport of the arguments as to the basic facts and macroscopic evidence, i.e., (i) the Plaintiffs inserted a provision on the security inspection results of the instant forecast when entering into the instant service contract with the investigating agency, and (ii) the Defendant’s act of obtaining the results of the instant forecast investigation in advance was managed as confidential, such as entering into the instant performance memorandum, which imposes a duty to maintain mutual confidentiality, etc.; (iii) the Defendant’s act of obtaining the results of the instant forecast investigation cannot be deemed as a lawful coverage activity in accordance with the press practice; (iii) the Defendant’s act of obtaining the results of the instant forecast investigation was not immediately disclosed; and (iv) the Defendant was disclosed in the form of a quoted report after it was disclosed by the Plaintiff MBC; and (iv) it is reasonable to deem that the results of the instant forecast investigation was in a state where it was maintained as confidential by considerable effort until it was disclosed. The Defendant’s act of obtaining the results of the instant forecast investigation cannot be deemed to be denied.

D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the outcome of the instant forecast investigation existed from the time when the Defendant acquired it to the time when it was disclosed.

2) Whether the Defendant’s obtaining and disclosing the result of the instant forecast and investigation constitutes a trade secret infringement

A) Article 2 subparag. 3(a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act stipulates not only an act constituting a crime under the Criminal Act, such as theft, deception, threat, or other improper means, but also an act or means that are contrary to good morals and other social order, such as the maintenance of sound trade order, such as inducement of such violation, or the maintenance of fair competition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12528, Jul. 14, 201).

B) However, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, who did not have any cost or effort in the process of creating and maintaining the value of the instant forecast and investigation results of the instant case, obtained the results of the instant forecast on the above channel as legitimate news gathering activities according to the press practices, and the Defendant’s act of indicating and disclosing the source was merely taking the form of a quoted report. As such, the Defendant’s act of obtaining and disclosing the results of the instant forecast and investigation constitutes an act contrary to the fair competition order is as seen earlier. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s act of obtaining and disclosing the trade secret constitutes “the act of obtaining or disclosing it by any other unlawful means” as stipulated in Article 2 subparag.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant’s act of obtaining and reporting the results of the instant predicted investigation in the above manner constitutes an unfair competition act, tort, and trade secret infringement, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages arising therefrom.

4. Determination on the scope of liability for damages

A. Criteria for determination

According to Article 14-2 (5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, where it is extremely difficult to prove the amount of damages due to the nature of the fact in question, the court may recognize that an act of unfair competition, a violation of Article 3-2 (1) or (2), or a violation of trade secrets has occurred, but it is extremely difficult to prove the amount of damages, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (4).

Furthermore, in a claim for damages arising from a tort, where the existence of property damage is recognized as having occurred, but it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case, the court may determine the amount of damage in proximate causal relation by comprehensively taking into account all the relevant indirect facts, such as the relationship between the parties revealed by the outcome of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the background leading up to the occurrence of property damage caused by the tort and its damage, the nature of the damage, and the overall situation after the damage occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da1935

B. In the instant case

1) In light of the above determination criteria, the fact that the plaintiffs paid 2.4 billion won in return for the result of the prediction and investigation of this case is as seen earlier, but this is merely an input cost, and it cannot be recognized as the decrease of the plaintiffs' property due to the defendant's act, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that all of the above cost amount is damage caused by the defendant's act (or it is difficult to conclude that the above 2.4 billion won is the market value of the information called the result of the prediction and investigation of this case). Unlike others, it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage suffered by the plaintiffs in light of the nature of the case. Thus, it is reasonable to recognize the damage in proximate causal relation by taking into account all the indirect facts

2) The following circumstances revealed by adding to the purport of the entire arguments and facts of the basic facts described above, and macroscopic evidence, i.e., the plaintiffs paid 2.4 billion won to obtain the result of the prediction and investigation of this case, ii) the defendant would have paid 600,000 won (=2,400,000,000 won: 4) to obtain the result of the prediction and investigation of this case through the service contract of this case with the plaintiffs. ③ According to the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence Nos. 5-3, the defendant also considered 728,00,000 won (Additional No. 728), and 40% of the contract amount per each company (the total amount of 00,000 won) after the conclusion of the service contract of this case, 50% of the contract amount per each company (the maximum amount of 120,000,000 won).

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the plaintiffs 400,000,000 won and the delay damages calculated by each of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from September 6, 2014 to August 21, 2015, which is the date of the adjudication of this case where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Number of judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Yang Young-young

Judge Freeboard