[1] The purport of Article 12-2 (1) 2 of the former Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act

[2] In a case where the publication of a general daily newspaper does not significantly fall short of the publication result required by the former Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act or the number of copies published is far smaller than the ordinary number of copies published in the general daily newspaper, whether the publication of a general daily newspaper constitutes the suspension of publication under Article 12-2 (1) 2 of the same Act (negative)

[1] The purport of Article 12-2 (1) 2 of the former Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act (amended by Act No. 5620 of Dec. 31, 198) provides that the Minister of Information may ex officio revoke the registration of a periodical, the publication of which has been suspended for not less than one year without any justifiable reason, is to prevent the occurrence of a periodical that has not been published for a long time, thereby protecting the social trust in the periodical and to facilitate the new registration of a periodical that intends to use the same or similar title (title. 1) as well as to protect the social trust in the periodical by preventing the occurrence of a periodical that has not been published for a long time. It does not intend to compel the publication

[2] Article 24 (1) 3 of the former Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act (amended by Act No. 5620 of Dec. 31, 198) only provides that a person who fails to maintain the result of publication under Article 7 (6) of the same Act shall be punished by a fine for negligence. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the same Act does not provide for the lower limit of the number of copies to be published once in a general daily newspaper, it cannot be deemed that the publication of a periodical is considerably short of the number of copies published in a general daily newspaper, or that the number of copies published is much smaller than that of the ordinary number of copies published in a general daily newspaper.

[1] Article 12-2 (1) 2 of the former Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act (amended by Act No. 5620 of Dec. 31, 1998) / [2] Article 7 (6), 12-2 (1) 2, and 24 (1) 3 of the former Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act (amended by Act No. 5620 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 8 of the former Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16440 of Jun. 30, 199)

Free Daily Ltd.

The Minister of Culture and Tourism (Attorney Jeong-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu6106 delivered on April 16, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The purport of Article 12-2 (1) 2 of the former Registration, etc. of Periodicals Act (amended by Act No. 5620 of Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which applies to this case is that the Minister of Information may cancel ex officio the registration of a periodical, the publication of which has been suspended for not less than one year without any justifiable reason, is to prevent the occurrence of a periodical that has not been published for a long time, thereby protecting the social trust in the periodical, and to facilitate the new registration of a periodical that intends to use the same or similar title (title) to protect the social trust in the periodical, and not to compel the publication of a periodical by using the registered facilities, etc. of the periodical.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the disposition of revocation of registration of this case was unlawful even if the publication of this case, which was delayed after the publication of this case, would not be deemed to have never been issued, and even if it was not used as a printed facility for which the above publication was registered. Such judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the publication of the periodical, as

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 24(1)3 of the Act only provides that a person who fails to maintain the result of publication under Article 7(6) of the Act shall be punished by a prescribed fine for negligence. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the Act does not provide for the lowest limit of the number of copies to be published once in the case of a general daily newspaper, it cannot be deemed that there was a suspension of publication under Article 12-2(1)2 of the Act on the ground that the number of copies issued as of June 30, 1997 is considerably less than that of the ordinary number of copies issued in the general daily newspaper, or that the number of copies issued is much less than that of the ordinary number of copies issued in the general daily newspaper.

In the same purport, it is proper that the court below recognized that the existing suspension of publication was resolved by the publication of the periodical of this case as of June 30, 1997, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal on this point are not acceptable.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)