Ministry of Justice Directs 'Appeal Waiver' in Case to Cancel Dismissal of Former MBC Board Chairman Ko Young-joo

Former Chairman of the Korea Broadcasting Culture Promotion Foundation, Ko Young-joo. / Photo by Yoon Dong-joo doso7@

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Ministry of Justice has instructed the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) to forgo an appeal after losing the first trial in the dismissal cancellation lawsuit filed by former Broadcasting Culture Promotion Foundation (Bangmunjin) Chairman Ko Young-joo against the KCC.

On the 13th, the Ministry of Justice announced, "Today, regarding the first trial ruling in which the defendant KCC lost in the dismissal cancellation lawsuit filed by plaintiff former Chairman Ko against the KCC, we have instructed the KCC to forgo an appeal."

The Ministry of Justice stated that it took this measure considering ▲ that the first trial ruling, which ruled against the defendant, did not recognize most of the reasons (13 out of 14) that formed the basis for the dismissal and judged the defendant's dismissal as an 'abuse of discretion' and thus illegal, and ▲ that the 'former president's communist remarks,' which were included among the dismissal reasons, were finally confirmed by the Supreme Court in related civil and criminal trials as not illegal. Taking into account the slim chances of the government winning in the higher courts, this action was taken.

Additionally, the Ministry of Justice said, "The KCC, as the agency responsible for litigation, did not present a separate opinion regarding whether to appeal."

Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Litigation Involving the State, etc. stipulates that "When conducting administrative litigation, the head of the administrative agency must follow the instructions of the Minister of Justice." Therefore, following the Ministry of Justice's instruction, the KCC is expected to forgo an appeal, and the first trial ruling will be finalized as is.

Previously, the KCC, which has the authority to appoint and dismiss Bangmunjin directors, dismissed former Chairman Ko in January 2018, alleging that while serving as chairman of Bangmunjin, the major shareholder of MBC, he encouraged unfair labor practices and caused social repercussions due to ideological bias. Former Chairman Ko filed an administrative lawsuit against the KCC's dismissal order and won the first trial on December 22 of last year.

At the time of dismissing former Chairman Ko, the KCC cited his past remarks before taking office, such as 'left-wing regime' and 'Moon Jae-in is a communist,' as evidence supporting his ideological bias.

Former Chairman Ko stated at a New Year's greeting event held by conservative civic groups at the Korea Press Center International Conference Hall on January 4, 2013, shortly after the 18th presidential election, that when he was a public security prosecutor in 1982 investigating the Burim case, "The people in the Blue House Busan network during the Roh Moo-hyun administration are all connected to the Burim case. They are all communist activists and involved in communist movements. Therefore, I considered candidate Moon Jae-in a communist, and I was convinced that if he became president, our country would inevitably become communist. I am truly grateful to those who led the efforts to prevent our country from becoming communist."

He also mentioned, "The Burim case was not a democratization movement but a communist movement, and candidate Moon was well aware of this."

In response, former President Moon Jae-in filed a lawsuit against former Chairman Ko in 2015, claiming 100 million won in damages, stating that "his social reputation was seriously damaged by baseless remarks."

The first and second trials partially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering payments of 30 million won and 10 million won in consolation damages, respectively. However, in September last year, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court rulings and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

The court at that time stated, "'Communist' remarks should be seen as opinions or expressions based on the defendant's experience," and "It is difficult to regard them as statements of specific facts that would defame the plaintiff's honor."

It added, "This is part of the process of exchanging opinions and debates on the plaintiff's political ideology," and "It is not appropriate to evaluate this as exceeding the limits of freedom of expression by highlighting only the negative aspects of the plaintiff's social evaluation."

In the criminal trial where the same remarks were an issue and defamation charges were filed, former Chairman Ko was finally acquitted in February last year.

The Supreme Court judged that the 'communist' remark was an expression of ideological stance rather than a statement of specific facts that could defame, remanded the case, and the acquittal was confirmed in the retrial.