[천지일보=손지아 기자] Netflix lost the first trial in a lawsuit against SK Broadband saying it could not pay the network usage fee on the 25th, and there is interest in whether a domestic Internet service provider (ISP) will be the first case of receiving a network usage fee from an overseas content provider (CP). lean
Although Netflix said that it would continue to cooperate with SK Broadband after the judgment, it repeatedly emphasized the existing position held by the court in relation to the loss. Still, it is unreasonable for CPs to pay network usage fees to ISPs.
The industry is raising the possibility that Netflix will file an appeal or not pay network fees. If a precedent for the payment of network usage fees is set, it is expected that the court’s judgment will not be easily accepted because the consequences will not be formidable. This is because it was an important trial for the related industry that is worth noting overseas, as well as various stakeholders such as global CPs such as Netflix and ISPs outside of Korea.
Regarding the results of the first trial, the court said, “It seems that the benefit of confirming the absence of an obligation to negotiate is not recognized only by the evidence submitted by the plaintiff. According to the principle of freedom of contract, whether or not to conclude a contract and what kind of price to pay is a matter to be decided by the negotiation of the parties.
In response, Netflix said, “We are currently closely reviewing the court’s ruling stating that network-related matters should be decided through consultation between companies and companies.” Since the court said that it is a matter for companies to discuss rather than forcing them to pay the network usage fee, it is interpreted as expressing the thought that the payment of the network usage fee has not yet been decided.
On the other hand, SK Broadband welcomed the court’s decision, arguing that “the court clearly acknowledged through the judgment that Netflix has an obligation to pay SK Broadband for the connection.”
In SK Broadband, unlike Netflix, the court said, “The plaintiff (Netflix) pays the defendant (SK Broadband) a consideration for receiving a paid service from the defendant at least to connect to the defendant’s Internet network and maintain the connection. ), it is reasonable to assume that the company bears the obligation to pay.”
According to this judgment, the court ruled that “the plaintiff is accessing the Internet network through the defendant, or at least is receiving a paid service from the defendant to connect to the defendant’s Internet network and maintain the connection state.”
Finally, “as long as the plaintiff is recognized as owing the debt to the defendant for ‘consolidation’, even if the scope has not been determined, all of the plaintiffs’ claims for confirmation of the absence of this part should be regarded as without cause (dismissed).” concluded
Copyright holder © Cheonji Ilbo – New Era Hope Press Prohibition of unauthorized reproduction and redistribution