Court Dismisses Most Injunction Requests to Ban Open Sympathy TV's Broadcast of 'Kim Geon-hee Phone Call'

Yoon Seok-yeol, the presidential candidate of the People Power Party, and his wife Kim Geon-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 life.

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

The court prohibited the disclosure of statements related solely to the private lives of Kim herself, Yoon, and their family members, 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 ban as they might violate the Communication Privacy Protection Act. The court dismissed all other requests concerning the phone conversations, including some content previously banned from broadcasting 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 the contents listed in Appendix 3 of the recorded phone files between the creditor and cameraman Lee Myung-soo of Seoul's Voice as a broadcast program."

However, the court added, "All other requests by the creditor are dismissed," and "The creditor shall bear 80% of the litigation costs, and the debtor shall bear the remaining portion."

Earlier, Lee, 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 injunction requests against MBC, Seoul's Voice, and Yeollin Gonggam TV, which had announced the release.

The recording in question, which became the subject of dispute over its disclosure, consists of files recorded by Lee during 53 phone calls with Kim from August 2 of last year, totaling 7 hours and 45 minutes.

Kim's side reportedly requested the court to ban the release of the recordings, stating that the first recording released through MBC had only intensified 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 of rebuttal, and as a public figure, she must tolerate 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 request against MBC, partially granted her request on the 14th.

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

The court dismissed five of these items without further examination, citing MBC's statement that they were not included in the broadcast. For the remaining four items, including remarks related to conservatives and the Me Too movement, as well as the request to Lee to come to Yoon's campaign and assist, the court ruled that broadcasting was permissible.

The parts of Kim's request that the court granted included: ▲ statements made in a somewhat strong tone expressing dissatisfaction with media personnel, ▲ conversations unrelated to political views, and ▲ additionally, statements related to ongoing investigations involving Kim Geon-hee.

Kim also requested an indirect enforcement order requiring MBC to pay 100 million KRW per violation if it breached the court's broadcasting ban, but the court did not accept this. The court reasoned that, based on MBC's attitude during the case records and hearings, it was difficult to conclude that MBC was likely to violate the injunction order.