Supreme Court: Police Blocking Assembly at Daehanmun Was Illegal Control but No Liability for Compensation to Minbyun

On March 8, 2013, members of the Ssangyong Motor National Countermeasure Committee held a rally in front of Daehanmun Gate at Deoksugung Palace, Jung-gu Office, Seoul.

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Lawyers for a Democratic Society (Minbyeon) filed a lawsuit seeking damages against the police who blocked a rally in front of Daehanmun in 2013, but the Supreme Court ruled against them. Although the court acknowledged the police's illegal actions at the time, it held that Minbyeon could not be regarded as a subject whose freedom of assembly and demonstration was infringed.

On the 12th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Dongwon) announced that it upheld the lower court's ruling dismissing Minbyeon's appeal in the damages lawsuit filed against the state and former senior officials of the Namdaemun Police Station.

Previously, the National Countermeasure Committee set up a tent protest site and a memorial altar near Daehanmun in Jung-gu, Seoul, in 2013 in relation to the Ssangyong Motor incident, and held a rally to mourn the victims of unfair dismissals.

However, Jung-gu Office removed these to create flower beds, and the police, on the grounds of maintaining traffic order, installed police lines to block the rally. In response, Minbyeon claimed, "Our freedom of assembly was infringed" and filed a claim for damages of 13 million won against the state and others.

The first trial court ruled that "the freedom of assembly organized and participated in by Minbyeon was infringed by the defendants" and ordered the defendants to pay 3 million won to the plaintiff.

The first trial court stated, "The plaintiff is an association of lawyers aimed at defending fundamental human rights and contributing to the development of democracy," and "As an unincorporated association, it has legal standing as a party." It also added, "This rally was held as part of a project deemed necessary to achieve the objectives of the plaintiff organization."

On the other hand, the second trial court dismissed Minbyeon's claim and overturned the previous ruling. Although it acknowledged that the police's act of setting up the order maintenance line was illegal, it judged that Minbyeon was not a party whose freedom of assembly was infringed.

The second trial court pointed out, "The organizer of the rally at the time was the 'Labor Committee' affiliated with Minbyeon, and the representative of the organizing group was also registered under the name of the chairman of the Labor Committee," adding, "Only about 10 out of approximately 1,000 lawyers in Minbyeon participated in the rally, most of whom belonged to the Labor Committee."

Furthermore, it emphasized, "It is difficult to see that Minbyeon, separate from the members and lawyers of the Minbyeon Labor Committee, had an independent status as an organizer or participant enjoying the freedom of assembly."

The Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment. The court stated, "The lower court did not err in its legal interpretation regarding the freedom of assembly, the organizers and participants of the rally, and legal standing, nor did it omit any judgment that would affect the ruling," and dismissed all appeals.