이 논문의 평석대상판결은 규제법령에 위반된 법률행위의 효력의 한 사례로서 간접광고를 목적으로 한 방송제작지원계약의 효력을 다룬 최초의 리딩 케이스로서 대상판결에서 나타난 여러 가지 법적 쟁점을 검토하고 있다. 이들 법적 쟁점들은 결국 간접광고를 목적으로 한 방송제작지원계약의 효력에 관한 문제로 귀결된다. 간접광고를 금지하고 있던 구 방송법 관련 법규정들은 효력규정이라기보다는 단속규정으로 보는 것이 타당할 것이므로 그에 위반된 사인들 간의 제작지원계약은 여전히 유효하다. 그러므로 계약의 이행은 준수되어야 하며 계약내용대로 이행되지 아니한 경우 불이행에 대한 책임은 당연한 법적 귀결이다. 이와 같은 상황에서 프로그램 내 간접광고를 제한적으로 허용하는 방송법규와 방송심의규정이 2010년 2월부터 개정되어 시행되고 있다. 이와 같은 개정안은 무엇보다 방송제작의 재원확보에 기여하여 방송과 산업을 보다 생산적으로 발전시킬 수 있는 원동력이 될 수 있을 것이다. 그러나 반면에 방송이 추구해야 할 가장 중요한 가치인 방송의 공정성과 공익성을 훼손할 수 있다는 점에서 여전히 이를 우려하는 목소리에 귀 기울여야 할 것이다.

The precedent as a leading case examined some legal issues of broadcasting sponsorship contracts. The legal issues dealt with in the case converged into the validity of broadcasting sponsorship contracts in violation of relevant regulatory legislations. Is the broadcasting sponsorship contracts in violation of regulatory legislations will valid? The relevant clauses in 「Broadcasting Act」are not ius cogens but mere non-mandatory provisions. The broadcasting sponsorship contracts in violation of regulatory legislations between private persons, therefore, is still valid. As a result, the contractors should fulfill the contracts, and should be responsible for non-fulfillment of the contracts. According to market forward-looking policy, 「Broadcasting Amendment Act 2010」 partially permits indirect advertisements in broadcasting programs. The Amendment Act intents to secure requisite finances for development of broadcasting industry. But, Broadcasting Act is aimed at establishing social responsibility of broadcasting system too. In short, it is necessary to keep an equilibrium in interpretation of regulatory legislations on broadcasting sponsorship contract.

The precedent as a leading case examined some legal issues of broadcasting sponsorship contracts. The legal issues dealt with in the case converged into the validity of broadcasting sponsorship contracts in violation of relevant regulatory legislations. Is the broadcasting sponsorship contracts in violation of regulatory legislations will valid? The relevant clauses in 「Broadcasting Act」are not ius cogens but mere non-mandatory provisions. The broadcasting sponsorship contracts in violation of regulatory legislations between private persons, therefore, is still valid. As a result, the contractors should fulfill the contracts, and should be responsible for non-fulfillment of the contracts. According to market forward-looking policy, 「Broadcasting Amendment Act 2010」 partially permits indirect advertisements in broadcasting programs. The Amendment Act intents to secure requisite finances for development of broadcasting industry. But, Broadcasting Act is aimed at establishing social responsibility of broadcasting system too. In short, it is necessary to keep an equilibrium in interpretation of regulatory legislations on broadcasting sponsorship contract.

broadcasting sponsorship, sponsorship contract, indirect advertisement, regulatory legislation, ius cogens