Global Freedom of Expression

Español العربية

Han v. Korean Broadcasting System

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Audio / Visual Broadcasting
  • Date of Decision
    July 2, 2008
  • Outcome
    Access to Information Granted
  • Case Number
    2007 Nu 24731
  • Region & Country
    Korea, Republic of, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    Appellate Court
  • Type of Law
    Administrative Law
  • Themes
    Access to Public Information
  • Tags
    Frivolous or vexatious request, Media/Press, Privacy, Private entities, RTI law

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

The Seoul High Court held that the Korean Broadcasting System is a public institution and as such had to disclose a tape of a news documentary that had never been broadcast. The Court reasoned that the compelled disclosure does not violate media freedom under the Constitution or the Broadcasting Act because the purpose of the request was not to broadcast the information, and it could not be regarded as a restriction on, or interference with, freedom of the press or freedom and independence of programming.

This case analysis was contributed by Right2Info.org.


Facts

In November 2006, Han, a supporter of Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk, a disgraced biomedical scientist who had been accused of fabricating stem cell research, requested a tape from the Korean Broadcasting System (KBS). The tape was a news documentary dealing with the credibility of Dr. Hwang’s research which had been edited by a KBS TV producer without authorization, but had not been used for any KBS broadcast. KBS refused to hand over a copy of the tape to Han, as it had already been made available on the internet by an anonymous third party. Han sued to request the tape and the Seoul Administrative Court held that KBS, as an entity governed by the Media Law, is a public institution covered by Article 2-4 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (OIDA), and that the request for a copy of the tape should be granted as it was not a request for the purpose of broadcasting.


Decision Overview

The Seoul High Court affirmed the ruling of the Seoul Administrative Court and ruled that the OIDA applied to the KBS. The High Court held that the requested tape constituted information under the access to information (ATI) law because, although the tape was edited by a KBS employee without permission, it was still prepared, obtained, and managed by KBS. Importantly, the Court ruled that compelled disclosure of the tape did not violate media freedom under the Constitution and the Broadcasting Act, however, it ordered any information related to an individual’s reputation and privacy to be removed. The Court reasoned that because Han’s request was not for broadcasting of the information, it could not be regarded as a restriction on, or interference with, the KBS’s right to freedom of the press or with its right to freedom and independence of programming.

In addition, the Court also held that the disclosure of the tape did not violate rights to privacy or copyright, as it was an unpublished work without any evidence indicating that KBS or the producer owned the copyright and any information related to an individual’s reputation and privacy would not be disclosed. Furthermore, the request could not be excluded as vexatious even though more than 1,065 others had submitted similar requests, as there is no limitation on the purpose of the request under the ATI law and the defendant was not requesting the tape solely for the purpose of interfering with KBS’s work.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Official Case Documents

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback