Yoo Jung-joo "Government Should Withdraw Appeal on Cultural Sector Blacklist"

Ministry of Culture Lawsuit Supervising Agency Seoul High Prosecutors' Office Refutes Appeal Reason
"Doubt on 'Whether Damage Occurred' Itself, Merely Acknowledged Illegality in Words"

The distributor of the film 'Diving Bell,' Cinema Dal, won the first trial ruling in the blacklist damages lawsuit on the 10th. The Korean Film Council gave up on appealing. The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism did not withdraw. According to Rep. Yoo Jeong-ju of the Culture, Sports and Tourism Committee on the 28th, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism recently agreed to forgo the appeal. This was to prevent unnecessary conflicts, heal the wounds of the affected cultural artists, and achieve social integration.

The Seoul High Prosecutors' Office, which directs the lawsuit, had a different view. They maintained the appeal, citing three reasons. First, there is no guarantee that Cinema Dal received support funds, and it has already received support funds several times. Since there are no specific claims or data regarding related scores, they believed it was necessary to judge the 'occurrence of damage itself.' Second, a corporation does not have the right to claim consolation damages. Third, the director of 'Diving Bell' is currently pursuing a personal damages lawsuit, posing a risk of double payment.

Regarding the first reason, Rep. Yoo countered, "If there is no guarantee that support funds were received, then why was a blacklist created to exclude them from support?" She condemned it as "a hypocritical and barbaric stance that verbally acknowledges illegality but practically denies the 'occurrence of damage itself.'"

For the second reason, she cited Supreme Court rulings from 1996 and 1980. The rulings state, "If a corporation’s social reputation and credit are damaged, thereby infringing on its social evaluation, it constitutes an unlawful act against the corporation, and the corporation can claim not only property damages but also consolation damages against the infringer." Rep. Yoo pointed out, "There is no room for dispute."

Regarding the third reason, she argued, "The mental and property damages of a natural person and the damages of a corporation differ significantly in content and nature." She insisted, "The Supreme Court has clearly established precedents distinguishing infringements on honor and credit," and asserted, "There is no risk of double payment."