Charges on Movie Tickets Case

[20-2(B) KCCR 447, 2007Hun-Ma860, November 27, 2008]

In this case, the Constitutional Court decided that the system adopted to finance the Motion Picture Promotion Fund in which movie viewers pay three percent of the movie ticket prices as charges and movie enterprisers pay the collected sum to the Korean Film Council does not violate the Constitution.

Background of the Case

The system in which movie viewers bear three percent of the movie theater admission fees as charges and movie enterprisers pay the collected sum to the Korean Film Council will be implemented temporarily from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014 as a way to finance the Motion Picture Promotion Fund, which was established with the purpose of promoting film arts and the Korean film industry. The complainants, herein the movie enterprisers and viewers, filed the constitutional complaint in this case, on the grounds that such imposition of charges for movie tickets and the relevant restrictive regulation on penalties levied on movie enterprisers for their failure of collection and payment obligationinfringe their property rights, liberty of occupational activity, and equality rights.

Summary of Decision

The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous decision, dismissed the claim regarding the restrictive regulation on penalties levied on movie enterprisers in case of their failure to fulfill the obligation of collection and payment and, in an opinion of 4 (denied) to 5 (upheld) but falling short of the quorum of six persons required for the decision of holding the infringement of basic rights, denied complainants' constitutional complaint regarding charges on movie tickets for the following reasons:

1. Regarding Restrictive Regulation on Penalties

The restrictive regulation on penalties imposed on movie enterprisers for their failure of collection and payment of movie ticket charges presupposes the concrete acts of execution to levy penalties and adjudication in case of an objection thereof, and it is not that the complainants are taking issue with the excessive amount of penalties. Therefore, the restrictive regulation concerning penalties, prescribed separately from the obligation provision, does not directly violate the basic rights.

2. Regarding Charges on Movie Tickets

A. Opinion of Four Justices (Denied)

Imposition of charges on movie tickets is part of the contribution to financing the Motion Pictures Promotion Fund designed to accomplish the goal of promoting film arts and developing the Korean film industry. This particular type of public goal collects financial resources through charges instead of taxation to which the group of movie viewers are recognized as having close relevance. In other words, movie viewers, as those who enjoy the artistic genre of movies, share collective homogeneity and objective proximity to the promotion of film arts, and the benefits from the long-term development of the film industry through appropriation of the Fund will ultimately be returned to movie viewers, or consumers of the film industry, thereby substantiating their responsibility and usefulness. At the same time, the feasibility and appropriateness of the act of collection is constantly controlled by the legislature in accordance with the Framework Act on Management of Charges.

Therefore, it is reasonable to designate movie viewers as those responsible for payment of charges, which do not contradict the rule against excessive restriction either in that it involves a small amount and is temporarily imposed. For this reason, charges on movie tickets do not infringe movie viewers' property rights and movie enterprisers' freedom of occupational activity. In addition, given that movie viewers are essential and typical consumers of the film industry and that movie enterprisers are attached to many and unspecified viewers and thus can pursue efficiency in collecting charges, the differential

treatment of movie viewers and enterprisers as opposed to others who also enjoy cultural life and who engage in the culture industry is reasonably grounded. Therefore, the right to equality of movie viewers and enterprisers are not infringed, either.

B. Opinion of Five Justices (Unconstitutional)

Charges on movie tickets is a way to collect financial resources, and the promotion of film arts and development of the Korean film industry pursued through such imposition is a special public task whose financial resources can be secured through charges instead of taxes.

Yet, watching movies, a genre of mass culture, is only an accidental happenstance, and movie viewers are not a specific group based on homogeneity in historical, social, and legal terms. Also, movie viewers at a certain time point are no more close to the promotion of film arts than others since movies are easily accessible in daily lives. In particular, the group which is recognized as having direct proximity, responsibility, and usefulness as regards the promotion of a specific industry of movies is composed of those engaged in the industry, not the many and unspecified consumers, and having designated movie viewers as the responsible group, therefore, exceeds the boundary of legislative discretion. It is also hard to see that movie viewers have collective usefulness just because of the indirect interest expected from future viewers, who do not share any collective homogeneity with the current obligated payers. Therefore, movie viewers are not recognized as having close relevance to specific public tasks, such as development of the film industry, and the existence of the legislator's control over the process of collection and appropriation of charges is irrelevant to the selection of obligated payers.

In consequence, the charge on movie tickets is a type of charges to collect financial resources which is not constitutionally justified and thus is not an appropriate means to fulfill the legislative purpose of promoting film arts and developing the Korean film industry. Therefore, such imposition of charges violates the rule against excessive restriction, thereby infringing on movie viewers' property rights and movie enterprisers' liberty of occupational activity, and

discriminates them, without reasonable grounds, against those who enjoy cultural life other than watching movies and those working in other cultural industries, which infringes their equality rights.

Related Case

On December 18, 2003 before the decision of this case, the Constitutional Court ruled the charges for the Korea Culture and Arts Promotion Fund unconstitutional (Charges for Korea Culture and Arts Promotion Fund Case). Four Justices stated that such imposition violated the constitutional boundary of special charges while other four Justices said the charges contradicted the rule against blanket delegation. In this case, however, unlike the aforementioned case, only the constitutional boundary of charges for collecting financial resources was at issue, not the matter of blanket delegation. In particular, Justices were divided as to the fact that the charges involved a single genre of arts, movies. Although five Justices, a majority, voted for holding infringement an basic rights, the constitutional complaint was rejected for failure of meeting the quorum of six persons required for a decision of holding infringement an basic rights. As a result, the collection of charges on movie tickets that started from July 1, 2007 will remain until December 31, 2014 as previously scheduled.