Whether the public performance ethics committee’s non-acceptance of import prior to the recommendation for import of foreign movies by the Minister of Culture and Sports as prescribed by the former Motion Pictures Act is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (negative)

In light of Article 10(1) and (4) of the former Motion Pictures Act (amended by Act No. 5129 of Dec. 30, 195) and Article 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Motion Pictures Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15085 of Jun. 29, 1996), the deliberation by the Public Performance Ethics Committee on foreign motion pictures to be imported shall be conducted prior to the recommendation by the Minister of Culture and Sports having the authority to recommend the recommendation, and thus, a person who intends to import foreign motion pictures shall not be subject to an administrative disposition, since it is determined that he/she is unable to obtain the recommendation of import due to a non-examination of import by the said Committee, or his/her rights and duties are not changed directly.

Article 10(1) and (4) (see current Article 10(1) and Article 10(2) of the former Motion Pictures Promotion Act (Amended by Act No. 5129, Dec. 30, 1995); Article 10 of the former Motion Pictures Promotion Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15085, Jun. 29, 1996; Article 9 of the current Enforcement Decree of the Motion Pictures Promotion Act); Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act (see current Article 10(1) and (4) (see current Article 10(2) of the Motion Pictures Promotion Act); Article 10 of the former Motion Pictures Promotion Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 15085, Jun. 29, 199); Article 1

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Young-chul and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 201

Public Performance Ethics Committee (Law Office in Busan, Attorney Jeong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu18187 delivered on April 4, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of Article 10(1) and (4) of the former Motion Pictures Act (amended by Act No. 5129 of Dec. 30, 1995) and Article 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Motion Pictures Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15085 of Jun. 29, 1996), the Defendant’s deliberation on foreign motion pictures to be imported shall be conducted prior to the recommendation by the Minister of Culture and Sports having the authority to make the recommendation of import, and thus, it does not constitute an administrative disposition that does not directly affect the rights and obligations of the people. Thus, it cannot be said that a person who intends to import foreign motion pictures is determined to not obtain the right to obtain the recommendation of import due to the Defendant’s non-acceptance of import, or to have changed the rights and obligations directly.

In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the defendant's non-import review of foreign motion pictures of this case is justified, and it cannot be said that there are errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to contradictions in the grounds as pointed out in the arguments or the validity of non-import review of foreign motion pictures. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)