Library Patron Permanently Banned for Causing Disturbance, But Court Rules Ban Invalid

Court: "Authority to Manage Public Property Must Be Exercised with Limitations"

The court has ruled that a library director's decision to permanently ban a patron from a public library for causing a disturbance is invalid.

On May 12, the Administrative Division 1-2 of the Jeonju District Court (Presiding Judge Lim Hyunjun) announced that it had ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by citizen A against library director B, seeking confirmation of the invalidity of the permanent restriction on library access imposed on the patron.

Court image. The Asia Business Daily DB

In March 2023 and January 2024, A received permanent bans from entering two public libraries in Iksan, North Jeolla Province, prohibiting access to the libraries indefinitely.

The libraries claimed that A disrupted other patrons by moving between reading rooms and causing noise. It was also reported that A verbally abused or confronted other patrons when asked to be quiet, thereby creating a sense of fear.

In response, the libraries expelled A based on the "Iksan City Library Operation and Management Ordinance," which allows the library director to deny entry or order removal of individuals, such as those with infectious diseases, intoxicated persons, or anyone deemed necessary for the safety and order of patrons, in order to protect the rights of other users.

However, A filed an administrative lawsuit, arguing that the permanent ban was imposed without prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, or an explanation of the reasons, and that the severity of the measure rendered it invalid.

The court stated, "The plaintiff (A) continued to repeat the same behavior despite receiving multiple warnings from the defendant. Thus, there was a certain scope within which restricting A's access to the library could have been justified."

However, the court also explained, "The authority to manage public property must be exercised only to the extent necessary for the property to serve its intended public function, and any disadvantages to the plaintiff must also be limited to what is necessary for maintaining order. The sanction in this case went beyond the scope of property management and substantially restricted the plaintiff's rights. The ordinance cited by the defendant cannot serve as a legitimate legal basis for such a sanction."

The court concluded, "Even if the defect in the access restriction is not obvious, it is significantly unfair from the standpoint of protecting the plaintiff's rights to leave the permanent ban uncorrected and force the plaintiff to endure such disadvantage."

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