방송법상 분쟁조정제도의 쟁점과 과제 - 분쟁조정절차의 활성화 방안을 중심으로 -

Abstract

Broadcast disputes are conflicts between stakeholders in the field of broadcasting. The typical means of resolving these disputes is to bring the case to the courts. However, dispute resolution by litigation is subject to strict procedures and standards, and the parties are required to bear considerable expense and time-consuming costs. The system to compensate for these shortcomings is the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). These include arbitration, adjudication, mediation, and conciliation. The Broadcasting Act also provides for the dispute settlement procedure as an ADR to resolve broadcast disputes. However, despite the considerable time has passed since the introduction of the ADR into the Broadcasting Act, it is practically ineffective. The key issues in today's broadcast dispute are mainly related to balance of payments such as retransmission fees, program license fees, and home-shopping transmission fees. This type of dispute can’t be solved easily by the court. In addition to not having a criterion to make judgments, judging the appropriateness of the future cost between the parties is not the role of the court, nor is the court capable. Moreover, if the dispute is not resolved, the broadcast transmission will be suspended and the damage will affect viewers as a whole. In some cases, such disputes could potentially violate the prohibited acts under the Broadcasting Act if they are serious. ADR is a process of reaching an agreement through mutual concessions and compromises in such a dispute. It has the advantage of being able to flexibly cope with reasonable costs without depending on the law. The conclusion can be more persuasive, especially because it is a procedure led by a mediator with expertise. It is a direct and practical solution to the parties, as it can satisfy the parties through mediation rather than regulation of prohibited acts under the Broadcasting Act, which is limited to imposing corrective orders or fines. ADR should be encouraged further in the sense that it is not necessary to go to the regulatory level. As a result, the regulator can focus on the important issues, so it can make the efficiency of regulatory resources. Thus, this paper suggests various improvement measures in terms of institutional aspects or operation of mediation to activate the broadcasting ADR. In the event of reauthorization or reapproval of broadcasting company, the regulator reflects its efforts to resolve disputes through broadcasting ADR. It is also necessary to block attempts to make ADR ineffective through litigation, links to the broadcasting regulation to resolve the problem in the ADR stage, utilizes the Court-connected Early Mediation, and to strengthen the expertise and authority of the Broadcasting Dispute Settlement Commission.