Court Mostly Dismisses Open Sympathy TV's Injunction to Ban 'Kim Geon-hee Call' Broadcast... "Public Figures Must Bear the Consequences" (Comprehensive)

Yoon Seok-yeol, the People Power Party's presidential candidate, and his wife Kim Keon-hee. Photo by Moon Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] On the 19th, the court dismissed the injunction request filed by Kim Geon-hee, wife of Yoon Seok-yeol, the People Power Party's presidential candidate, against the YouTube channel Yeollin Gonggam TV, except for some parts related to private matters.

The Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 50 (Chief Presiding Judge Song Kyung-geun) partially granted Kim's request for an injunction to prohibit broadcasting and distribution against Yeollin Gonggam TV that afternoon.

The court prohibited the disclosure of statements related solely to the private lives of Kim herself or Yoon and his family, which are unrelated to the public domain, from the recorded phone conversations. Additionally, parts of the conversation recorded without the participation of Lee Myung-soo, a cameraman from the YouTube channel 'Seoul's Voice,' were included in the prohibition as they might violate the Communication Privacy Protection Act. The court dismissed all other requests, including those involving content previously banned in an injunction case related to MBC.

The court stated, "The creditor (Kim Geon-hee) shall not produce, edit, broadcast, advertise, or post on the internet any statements corresponding to those listed in Appendix 3 of the recorded phone conversations between the creditor and cameraman Lee from Seoul's Voice."

However, the court added, "All other requests by the creditor are dismissed," and "80% of the litigation costs shall be borne by the creditor, and the remainder by the debtor."

Previously, when applying for an injunction against MBC, Kim's side requested a penalty of 100 million KRW per violation if the court's broadcasting ban was violated. This time, they requested 1 billion KRW per violation, but this was not accepted. Kim's side also requested the deletion of videos already posted on Yeollin Gonggam TV and a penalty of 1 billion KRW per day for violations, but the court dismissed this as well.

The court first emphasized that prior restraint on media reports should generally not be allowed and is only permissible if two conditions are strictly and clearly met: ▲ the content is untrue, or it concerns matters of public interest but is not solely for the public good, and ▲ there is a risk of causing serious and irreparable harm to the victim.

Regarding the broadcast content in this case, the court judged that the fact that "Kim made statements as recorded in the audio files" cannot be considered untrue.

The court described most of Kim's statements as "matters of public interest and subjects for verification by the public." It concluded that "these are contents through which voters can verify whether Kim makes reasonable judgments based on objective grounds."

In particular, the court allowed the disclosure of statements related to Kim's investigation, stating, "It is difficult to accept that the right to remain silent would be violated or hindered because statements made freely outside investigative agencies were reported."

This contrasts with the Seoul Western District Court's decision, which handled Kim's injunction against MBC and prohibited the disclosure of investigation-related content.

Regarding whether Kim might suffer serious and irreparable harm, the court acknowledged that "reporting the content of the audio files may infringe or damage Kim's personality rights such as privacy, honor, and voice rights, and may cause inconvenience in future court or investigative proceedings." However, it pointed out that "Kim's evidence is insufficient to conclude that this constitutes serious and irreparable harm."

The court further stated, "Considering that Kim is a public figure as the spouse of a leading presidential candidate, subject to broad public interest and scrutiny, and that the content of the audio files pertains to public interest, the potential harm Kim might suffer does not outweigh the public interest and should be regarded as a risk she must bear."

However, the court ruled that content related to Kim and her family's private lives, "which are entirely unrelated to the public domain and concern only the private lives of herself or Yoon and his family," should be prohibited from disclosure as it may cause serious and irreparable harm to the creditor.

Earlier, Lee, the cameraman responsible for filming at the YouTube channel 'Seoul's Voice,' claimed to have recorded phone conversations with Kim and announced plans to release the recordings in collaboration with MBC. In response, Kim filed injunctions against MBC, Seoul's Voice, and Yeollin Gonggam TV, which had announced plans to disclose the recordings.

The disputed recordings consist of 7 hours and 45 minutes of phone conversations recorded by Lee over 53 calls with Kim from August 2 of last year.

Kim's side reportedly requested the court to ban the release of the recordings, citing that the first release through MBC had sparked excessive and unproductive controversy.

On the other hand, Yeollin Gonggam TV argued that since Kim's statements are being reported in real time, she has sufficient opportunity to exercise her right to rebut, and as a public figure, she must endure critical reporting related to herself.

Previously, the Seoul Western District Court Civil Division 21 (Chief Presiding Judge Park Byung-tae), which handled Kim's injunction against MBC, partially granted her request on the 14th.

At that time, Kim's side requested the court to prohibit broadcasting of nine specific contents based on the recordings circulating online in the form of rumors.

The court dismissed five of these requests without further examination, citing MBC's statement that those contents were not included in the broadcast. For the remaining four, including statements related to conservatives and the Me Too movement, and requests made to Lee to come to Yoon's campaign for help, the court ruled that broadcasting was permissible.

The parts of Kim's request that were granted included ▲ statements made in a somewhat strong tone expressing dissatisfaction with media personnel, ▲ conversations unrelated to political views, and ▲ statements related to Kim's ongoing investigation.

Kim also requested an indirect enforcement order requiring MBC to pay 100 million KRW per violation if the court's broadcasting ban was violated, but the court rejected this. The court reasoned that, based on the case records and MBC's attitude during the hearing, it was difficult to conclude that MBC was likely to violate the injunction order.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.