In a case where Gap et al. sent a reply to permit the use of a park on condition of prohibiting the use of a park and restoring the facility installed for the purpose of events to the original state, etc. with respect to Gap et al.’s application for the use of the park on viewing for the purpose of holding “qui language culture axis,” which is a cultural event which advocates the guarantee of human rights of sexual minoritiess, but notified Gap et al. of the withdrawal of cooperation for the use of a place (approval) in accordance with the civil petition coordination committee’s opinion that it is difficult to control the participants’ unexpected acts and may cause confusion to juveniles, the case holding that the

In a case where Gap et al. notified the withdrawal of cooperation in the use of a place in accordance with the civil petition coordination committee’s opinion that it is difficult to control the participants’ unexpected acts when a civil petition opposing the event was received and it is likely to cause confusion to juveniles, with respect to Gap et al.’s application for the use of a place in the park for the purpose of holding a “qui language culture axis,” which is a cultural event which advocates the guarantee of human rights of sexual minorities, the case holding that under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Urban Park, Green Areas, etc. Act, urban park should be guaranteed free use by the public, and it is not necessary for Gap et al. to seek the effect of the withdrawal notice related to the use of the park, and the suspension of the use of the urban park itself on the ground that Gap et al. does not have any provision restricting and prohibiting the use of the park on the ground that it is difficult for Gap et al. to smoothly withdraw the installation of a place without notifying the withdrawal of the installation of a facility that is generally necessary for a short time, and the event itself does not have any substantial effect.

Articles 24(1) and (3), 49(1), 53 subparag. 2, and 56(2) of the Urban Parks, Greenbelts, etc. Act, Article 22 subparag. 13, Article 23 subparag. 1 and 2 [Attachment 1] and Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Parks, Greenbelts, etc. Act, Article 23 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Applicant 1 and one other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys White-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

State Mayor (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. On October 18, 2017, the respondent shall be suspended from the effect of the withdrawal of the part of the withdrawal for the cooperation in the installation of a part for exercise among the notice of withdrawal on the cooperation for the use of the part for exercise against applicants on the same date until the pronouncement of the judgment in the case No. 2017Guhap828 of this Court.

2. The applicant's remaining claims are dismissed.

On October 18, 2017, the effect of the disposition rejecting permission for use of a new park by the respondent against the applicants shall be suspended until the judgment of the case No. 2017Guhap828 of this Court becomes final and conclusive.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged according to the overall purport of the records and examinations of this case.

A. The “qui language culture axis” is a cultural event that professes the guarantee of human rights of sexual minoritiess, such as the prohibition of hates and discrimination against same-sexs, and has been regularly held in some areas, including Seoul and Daegu. In recent years, the Jeju qui language culture axis Organizing Committee (hereinafter “the Committee”) comprised of 11 members for the purpose of planning cultural events for the same purpose in Jeju area.

B. On September 27, 2017, the applicants, the co-organization chairperson of the instant commission, specified the purpose of Jeju quina Culture Festival (hereinafter “instant event”) as the first time, applied for the use of the place with the following contents. On October 29, 201, the applicants, who were the chairpersons of the instant commission, filed an outdoor assembly report with the Jeju Dong-dong Police Station as “the date and time of the instant event, 07:0-18:00 on October 28, 2017, 200,” and the place of holding as “in the Jeju Nansan Park (including progress).”

The date and time of ○○ in the main sentence: The total number of visitors in the Newsan Park from 11:0 a.m. to 5:0 a.m. on October 28, 2017: The total number of visitors to the Newsan Park: 1,00 persons: the content of the event - the schedule for the performance of 4-5 teams (the forecast of 1-2 hours): The number of visitors to the nature of the event: 20 a.m.

C. On September 28, 2017, the Defendant sent a reply to the Committee of the instant case on the condition that the use of a new park should be permitted on the condition that “not to cause a civil petition due to noise damage,” “in a park, street occupation or commercial activity is prohibited,” “to prevent any damage to park facilities or turfs due to the installation of a event site facilities, and that the use of a new park shall be restored to its original state after use.” (hereinafter “instant reply”).

D. Many civil petitions opposing the holding of the instant event were received in Jeju Viewing, on the ground that the content of the instant reply is known, excessive exposure during the course of the event, or the display of sexual activity organizations harmful to juveniles, etc.

E. In accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, the Defendant had the civil petition coordination committee under the Jeju City’s jurisdiction deliberate on the pertinent civil petition. On October 17, 2017, the civil petition coordination committee presented the opinion that “it is difficult for individual participants to engage in the instant act and to control it, and it is unlikely to cause confusion to juveniles, etc. not established by the gender value manager due to the display of adult products, and it does not comply with the schedule of Jeju region.”

F. On October 18, 2017, the Defendant notified the committee of this case of the content that “the withdrawal of cases for the use of a place for the exercise of this case shall be made in accordance with the majority opinion of the civil petition coordination committee that “the withdrawal of cases for the use of a place shall be made” (hereinafter “instant withdrawal notification”).

2. Applicant's assertion

Although the respondent permitted the applicant's request for the use of the new park for holding the original event of this case, the respondent notified the withdrawal of this case to the effect that he refused to grant permission for use of the new park, which led to the filing of a civil petition by some citizens who oppose the same-sex itself. Therefore, the participants of the event of this case including the applicant have suffered not only the installation of a string for the proceeding of the event but also the disadvantage of prohibiting the use of the new park itself as the place where the event is held. Thus, the respondent sought the suspension of the validity of the withdrawal notification against the

3. Determination

A. Details of the relevant statutes

1) In principle, a new mountain park is a kind of urban park under the Act on Urban Parks, Greenbelts, Etc. (hereinafter “Urban Park Act”), and when considering the public functions of urban parks, which are spaces for urban citizens’ rest and emotional cultivation, it is in principle that free use of the relevant space shall be guaranteed to the public.

2) In addition, in consideration of the aforementioned functions and characteristics of an urban park, the Urban Park Act lists as prohibited acts in the urban park the “act of damaging trees”, “act of causing a serious noise or malodor, etc. to other persons,” and “act of doing with power-driven equipment with a wheels above two wheels, etc.,” instead of providing any provision that prohibits or restricts the use of the relevant park at the source on the grounds of the motive or purpose of the use of the relevant park, and imposes ex post facto sanctions, such as fines for negligence, etc., on the person who committed the relevant act (Articles 49(1) and 56(2) of the Act, Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree).

3) However, Article 24(1) of the Urban Park Act provides for a specific act exceeding simply using a park, such as “the act of installing facilities, buildings or structures other than park facilities,” which is subject to permission to occupy and use (Article 24(1) of the Act) and criminal punishment for a person who occupies and uses an urban park without permission (Article 53 Subparag. 2 of the Act). For instance, “the act of installing a temporary building or temporary structure for assembly or public performance, etc.” is related to the instant event and includes the subject of permission to occupy and use (Article 22 Subparag. 13 of the Enforcement Decree).

Meanwhile, the Urban Park Act provides that “the object of occupancy and use shall be placed in such a manner as not to undermine the scenic and scenic view of urban parks, and the function as urban parks,” “the structure of the object of occupancy and use to be installed on the ground shall be able to prevent the collapse, collapse, etc., and shall not interfere with the preservation of park facilities and the use of urban parks,” etc. as general standards for permission to occupy and use urban parks (Article 24(3) of the Act and Article 23 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree).” In relation to “the act of installing a short-term temporary building or temporary structure for assembly and public performance, etc.” as seen earlier, the term of existence shall be determined by the ordinance of the park management agency within the scope of one year,” and “the purpose of permission shall be for the development of education, religion, art, science, industry, etc.” as specific standards for permission to occupy and use (Article

B. Part on application for suspension of execution concerning withdrawal of permission for park use

1) The respondent allowed the use of a new park on the condition of prohibiting the use of the new park and restoring the facility installed for the purpose of events through the initial reply of this case, but notified the withdrawal of the existing consent regarding the use of the new park on the side of the committee of this case on the grounds of a civil petition opposing the exercise of this case. Therefore, from the perspective of the applicants, the reply of this case can be understood as the permission act of the respondent for the use of the new park, and the subsequent cancellation notification of this case can be understood as the name of the administrative agency rejecting the use of the new park.

2) However, even if examining relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Urban Park Act, it is not possible to find a provision that permits administrative agencies to restrict or prohibit the use of urban parks for the general public, such as the applicants on the ground of the users’ sexual desire, etc. (in the case of the instant committee, prior to the completion of the assembly report on the new park at the scheduled date of holding the instant event at the time of the instant event), and the respondent’s position on the designated date of the instant event is not significantly different. In other words, the respondent, separately from imposing an administrative fine, etc. ex post facto, for the use of the new mountain park by those who intend to participate in the instant event, may not prohibit the use of the park, and the instant notice of withdrawal is not made at the intent of prohibiting the use of the park at the source.”

3) Ultimately, regardless of the legal nature of the instant reply or the instant notification of withdrawal, or the genuine intent of the respondent, etc., insofar as the respondent made it clear that the respondent would not itself be involved in the use of a new park for holding the instant event during the litigation process, there is no need to seek suspension, etc. of the effect of the instant notification related to the use of the park through the instant application.

4) Therefore, the applicant’s request for this part is rejected as there is no benefit in the application.

C. The application for suspension of execution with respect to the withdrawal of the permission for installation of a secondary establishment

1) Unlike the issue of using a new park as the place for the event of this case, the respondent does not explicitly state its position on whether it is possible to install a studio for the event of the new park, notwithstanding this Court’s request for the title. The applicant’s request for the installation of a studio for the event in the new park through his official questioning dated September 27, 2017 can be deemed to include the respondent’s assertion and position in accordance with Article 24 of the Urban Park Act. Although the respondent’s assertion and position are not clear, it can be deemed that the respondent has withdrawn the existing consent to the installation of the studio for the event through the notice of withdrawal of this case.

2) However, the following circumstances revealed by the overall purport of the record and examination of this case, i.e., ① the committee of this case can hold the events of this case within the new park through the report of the assembly as seen earlier. Although the applicant is generally required to hold the assembly or event, the installation period is not more than a day, and it seems very easy for the respondent to restore to its original state. ② The respondent's exercise of this case within the new park does not prohibit the establishment of the Respondent in the public interest necessity for only the installation of the Respondent in the U.S. event site without any prohibition, on the other hand, the participants of the events of this case, including the applicant, can not be deemed to have been partially restricted in the freedom of assembly or expression because it is difficult for the Respondent to recognize that the above actions of this case, including the Respondent, could not be deemed to have been easily restricted in the freedom of assembly or expression, and it is difficult for the Respondent to withdraw the existing restrictions on the operation of the above event and its progress in light of the nature and contents of the basic right. ③ It seems difficult for the Respondent to use of the new assembly or announcement of this case.

3) Accordingly, the applicant’s application for this part is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the application of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining application is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Jin-young (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young