[1] The meaning of “where the grounds for a judgment are not indicated”, which is an absolute grounds for appeal under Article 424(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act, and whether the court should make a clear determination of the parties’ assertion that the relevant law is unconstitutional (negative)

[2] The subject of the hearing in the procedure of a provisional disposition (i.e., legitimacy of the claim for provisional disposition) and the base point of determining whether the claim is justifiable (=the time of closing

[3] Requirements for the claim of omission against infringement of the hostile rights and the subject of the order of omission

[4] The case holding that a corporation that establishes and operates a school and its principals may be the subject of the right to claim for omission against illegal expressive acts that infringe their personality rights, and further, as an operating entity of a school, may exercise the right to claim for omission, such as a claim for interference prevention against illegal acts that undermine their right to manage facilities, etc.

[5] The purport of Article 21(1) and (4) of the Constitution on the guarantee and limitation of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association, and whether the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and association may be subject to legal restrictions based on Article 37(2) of the Constitution (affirmative)

[6] Requirements for industrial action to be subject to special protection under the Constitution as a justifiable act and the standards for regulating industrial action where the requirements are not met

[7] The relationship between Article 31(6) of the Constitution and Article 33(1) of the Constitution, which is a provision concerning the status of teachers, and the basic right to work of teachers, and whether a special regulation is allowed unlike ordinary workers (affirmative)

[8] The case holding that it is difficult to view that unconstitutional situations arise even if Article 8 of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers' Unions is applied to a collective action by teachers under the pretext of the activities of the Korean Teachers' Union, since it violates Article 8 of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers' Unions, and the court's application of Article 8

[9] The case holding that prohibiting teaching staff members belonging to the Korean Teachers' Union from wearing or taking a part of a set, paper, or boom, such as the "satching of the Supporting Foundation" does not impose any restriction on the legitimate exercise of the right to organize of the workers or the trade union

[10] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which prohibited the act of using the facilities of a school as a place for the activities of the Korean Teachers' Union without the school principal's approval

[11] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which prohibited certain acts of teachers belonging to the Korean Teachers' Union, which infringed on the students' personality rights by specifying limited areas in time and place of class hours which directly affect the education of students

[12] Whether the prohibition of prior injunction under the decision of provisional injunction which the judicial branch examines and decides on disputes between individual parties constitutes a prior censorship prohibited under Article 21 (2) of the Constitution (negative)

[1] The "cases where reasons for the judgment are not clearly stated", which is an absolute grounds for appeal under Article 424 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, refers to cases where the reasons for the judgment are not stated at all or part of the reasons are omitted, or where it is unclear how the court recognizes facts and interpret and apply laws and regulations to which part of the reasons is unclear. Thus, as long as the reasons leading to the order are clearly indicated in the reasons for the judgment, it cannot be said that there is an error of law not specifying the reasons for the judgment just because the relevant laws did not judge the parties' claims that are unconstitutional. Further, the determination of the parties' arguments or defense should not be explicitly stated, but can be made by implied or indirect methods.

[2] In a case where a provisional disposition is subject to a court examination in the procedure of a provisional disposition, the decision of provisional disposition shall be maintained in a case where the court determines that the provisional disposition application is reasonable at the time of the closing of argument.

[3] The requirement is that the right to file a claim for omission against an act that infringes on a minor right, such as a personality right or a right to manage facilities, is likely to infringe on a minor right or has already been infringed, and the risk of recurrence exists. In such cases, the subject of an order of omission includes not only the same act that the perpetrator has already committed but also similar act that is likely to do so in the future.

[4] The case holding that a corporation that establishes and operates a school and its principals may be the subject of the right to claim for omission against illegal expressive acts that infringe their personality rights, and further, as an operating entity of a school, may exercise the right to claim for omission, such as a claim for interference prevention against illegal acts that undermine their right to manage facilities, etc.

[5] The purport of Article 21(1) and (4) of the Constitution is to guarantee the freedom of speech, publication, assembly, and association, which can be exercised by the general public, but it clearly states that such a type of freedom is not absolute freedom, but its own limit has not been infringed upon another person’s honor, rights, or public morals or social ethics. Thus, insofar as the freedom of speech, publication, assembly, and association is not an absolute fundamental right, an act of expression that an individual intends to do is not permitted without any restriction, but may be subject to legal restrictions based on Article 37(2) of the Constitution.

[6] An industrial action is a collective act committed by workers and meets the requirements for the crime of interference with business by force under Article 314 of the Criminal Act. However, since the right to collective action aimed at improving working conditions, etc. is subject to special protection under the Constitution, it shall not be subject to criminal punishment as a justifiable act. In order to obtain special protection as seen above, an industrial action satisfies the requirements stipulated in the Constitution and the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, such as the main purpose of improving working conditions, and if such requirements are not met, it shall be subject to the same standard as that of ordinary citizens.

[7] Since Article 31(6) of the Constitution on the Matters relating to the status of teachers is preferentially applied to Article 33(1) of the Constitution on the Fundamental Labor Rights, legislators may form an association similar to a general trade union with respect to teachers. However, the right to organize and the right to collective bargaining for the purpose of improving working conditions is allowed by different regulatory methods, but the exercise of the right to collective action is prohibited in full or in whole, or it is allowed to establish a trade union only for a metropolitan unit other than an individual workplace.

[8] The case holding that since it is not permitted under the current law to exercise the right to collective action for the improvement, etc. of working conditions for teachers differently from ordinary workers, it is against Article 8 of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers' Unions regardless of the time, place, method, etc. of conducting collective action under the pretext of the activities of the National Teachers' Union, and in light of the correlation between Articles 21, 31, 33, 37, etc. of the Constitution, it is difficult for the court to deem that unconstitutional situations occur by applying the text of Article 8 of the above Act based on the special provisions of the Constitution.

[9] The case holding that: (a) the act of a teacher of the Korean Teachers' Union wearing, wearing, or taking a spawn, spawn, spawn, etc., such as the act of leaving the spawn foundation, not merely an internal formation of a trade union, but an external collective action that can be seen as a tangible force to school operators; and (b) even if the act of wearing or taking the spawn, etc., as seen above is related to the "spawn right," it does not impose any restriction on the lawful exercise of the right to organize of a trade union

[10] The case holding that the decision of the court below which prohibited the act of using a trade union as a place for the activities of the Korean Teachers' Union without the school principal's approval is acceptable in light of the current Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers' Unions, since the legal principles applicable to a general trade union that can exercise three labor rights for the purpose of improving working conditions of only the workers belonging to the workplace, but cannot form a trade union at a national level or a City/Do unit, and the legal principles applicable to a teachers' trade union that cannot exercise the right to collective bargaining has an essential difference in the scope of the school's facilities.

[11] The case holding that the judgment of the court below which prohibited certain acts of teachers belonging to the Korean Teachers' Union, which infringed on the students' personality rights by specifying limited areas in time and place of class hours which directly affect the education of students

[12] The prohibition in accordance with a provisional disposition order which the judicial branch examines and determines on disputes between individual parties does not constitute a prior censorship prohibited by Article 21(2) of the Constitution, but does not infringe on the essential contents of freedom of the press.

[1] Article 424 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 283, 286, 300, and 301 of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Articles 300 and 305 of the Civil Execution Act / [4] Articles 300 and 305 of the Civil Execution Act / [5] Articles 21 (1) and (4), and 37 (2) of the Constitution / [6] Article 33 (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 2 subparagraph 5 and 6 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act; Articles 20 and 314 of the Criminal Act / [7] Articles 31 (1) and (6), 33 (1) of the Civil Execution Act; Articles 4, 6, and 8 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers’ Unions / [30] Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 30 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da5770 delivered on March 3, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1550), 2001Da81245 delivered on May 28, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1050) / [5] Constitutional Court en banc Decision 97Hun-Ma265 delivered on June 24, 199 (Hun-Ma36, 573) / [6] Supreme Court Decision 90Do357 delivered on May 15, 199 (Gong190, 1306) (Gong190, 1306) / [7] Constitutional Court en banc Order 90Do2852 delivered on January 29, 191 (Gong1991, 907) / [368Hun-Ba, 197] Constitutional Court en banc Order 90Hun-Ba3681 delivered on July 28, 1991

Applicant 1 and three other school juristic persons (Law Firm Future, Attorneys Park Jong-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Respondent No. 1 and four others (Attorney Su-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Kahap375 delivered on October 12, 2004

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the respondent (Appointed Party).

The grounds of appeal are examined (the supplementary statement of grounds of appeal within the scope of supplement).

1. Facts, etc. of this case

A. Factual relations

Examining the lower judgment in light of the record, the following facts are substantiated.

(1) The applicants are the corporations that establish and operate each of the instant schools and their principals, and the designated parties are the teachers who work for each of the instant schools, and are the members of the Korean Teachers’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Teachers’ Union”).

(2) The designated parties asserted that the applicant corporation is prone to the management of school affairs, and set up a tent in the school premises and scambling the scambling in and around the school and the surrounding areas of the school, put the scamet containing the relief of the “scambling of the scambling Foundation” and scambling and wearing the scams, scamblings, and scams containing similar contents, and kept a part of the school facilities as the s

(3) On the other hand, the designated parties engaged in various activities that infringe on the personal rights of the applicants in various forms, including before the office of some applicants.

B. Summary of the judgment below

The purpose of this case is to authorize the court below's provisional disposition order that the designated parties shall not engage in agricultural activity or demonstration by installing a tent without the consent of the principal within the boundary of each school of this case, or wearing or melting the above Ris, spats, and spats, or bring in or keep various goods for demonstration, etc., using the school facilities as a place for assistance in the whole school, and shall not engage in certain acts that infringe on the applicant's personality rights during the class hours, etc.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The absolute grounds for appeal under Article 424 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a case where the reasoning for the judgment is not stated in the judgment at all or part of the grounds is omitted, or where the court recognizes facts and interprets and applies laws and regulations to make the order unclear. Thus, as long as the circumstances leading to the order of the judgment clearly indicate the reasons for the judgment, it cannot be deemed that there was an unlawful act of not specifying the reasons for the judgment solely on the ground that the relevant Acts did not judge the party's assertion that it is unconstitutional. Further, the determination of the party's assertion or defense is not necessarily required to be made explicitly, but can be made by implied or indirect means (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da5770 delivered on March 3, 1995, 201Da81245 delivered on May 28, 2004, etc.), and it is reasonable that the provisional disposition becomes an object of the court's review in the procedure of provisional disposition is justified as of the closing of argument (see, e.g., Supreme Court's ruling of provisional disposition).

However, the respondent's grounds of objection indicated in the record purport that there is no need for the right to be preserved and the need for the preservation, which is the requisite for accepting the application for provisional disposition of this case, and the judgment of the court below should be deemed to have made a judgment on the grounds of objection corresponding to the denial in the litigation procedure by indicating the reason that the right to be preserved and the need for the preservation, which is the requisite for accepting the application for provisional disposition of this case, are actively substantiated based on the supporting materials in its holding. Therefore, the

3. As to the assertion on factual determination among the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 4

The purpose of the provisional disposition application of this case is to seek provisional disposition order which determines a temporary position to order a certain omission against the designated parties on the premise that the designated parties may file a claim for the omission in the case where the designated parties are likely to illegally infringe on the applicant's personality rights, right to manage facilities, etc. concerning each of the schools in this case. The above provisional disposition order of this case is required to include not only the same act that the designated parties already committed but also acts that are likely to cause a danger of a recurrence.

Upon examining the judgment below in light of the records, the court below seems to have specified the unlawful infringement of the applicant's personality rights, right to manage facilities, etc., which were committed by the designated parties based on the supporting materials as stated in its holding, and judged that there is a concern that such an act may be repeated in the same or similar form, and thus ordered the prohibition of such act. The court below's findings of fact and determination are acceptable, and the designated parties' inclusion in the prohibition order is unfair on the premise that the designated parties' act is limited to the same act as the one already committed by the designated parties. The ground of appeal purporting that it is improper to include the designated parties' act in the prohibition order in the past in the form of

4. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles among the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 4

A. Structure, etc. of the preserved right of this case

The right to be preserved in this case takes the structure that ① on the basis of the applicant’s right to personality and right to manage facilities, ② on the basis of the applicant’s right to personality and right to manage facilities (as to the subject of the right to claim for omission), ② on the basis of the designated parties’ right not to perform certain acts (as to the subject of the right to claim for omission).

B. The issue concerning the subject of the right to claim for omission

Applicants can be the subject of the right to exercise the right to claim for omission against illegal expressive acts that infringe their personality rights. Furthermore, as the operating entity of each of the instant schools, applicants can exercise the right to claim for omission, such as the right to claim for interference prevention against illegal acts that undermine the educational crisis based on the right to manage facilities, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da41708, Aug. 30, 2004, etc.).

The lower court determined that the applicant deemed that he/she exercised his/her right to demand omission on the basis of his/her personal right and right to manage facilities, etc. and recognized the applicant’s right to demand omission based on the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers’ Labor Unions (hereinafter “School Teachers’ Labor Union Act”), the School Health Act, the Private School Act, etc. in the lower court’s judgment, and thus, cannot be accepted.

C. The issue concerning the subject matter of the claim for omission

(1) The allegation in the grounds of appeal on this point is to the effect that the judgment of the court below prohibits the designated parties from performing justifiable acts to realize the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus, is unlawful. The first issue is to examine the overall legal relationship, and then review each individual claim in order.

(2) Provisions, etc. of the Constitution and relevant laws

(A) As to the freedom of speech, publication, assembly and association of the general public

The purport of Article 21(1) and (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea is to guarantee the freedom of speech, publication, assembly, and association which can be exercised by the general public, but it clearly states that such a type of freedom is not absolute freedom, but its own limit that cannot infringe on another person’s honor, rights, or public morals or social ethics. As such, insofar as the freedom of speech, publication, assembly, and association is not absolute fundamental rights, it is not allowed without any restriction, and it may be subject to legal restrictions based on Article 37(2) of the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 97Hun-Ma265, Jun. 24, 199).

(B) Constitutional special provisions on workers, etc.

Article 33(1) of the Constitution provides that “workers shall have the right to independent association, collective bargaining, and collective action to improve working conditions.” Article 33(1) specifically guarantees “the right to organize, the right to collective bargaining, and the right to collective action for the purpose of improving working conditions” among the general public.

Article 33(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea defines disputes arising from disagreements between a trade union and an employer with respect to the determination of working conditions, such as wages, working hours, welfare, dismissal, and other treatment, as “labor disputes” (Article 2 subparag. 5), as “industrial action” (Article 2 Subparag. 6), and as “industrial action” (Article 2 subparag. 6) that interferes with the normal operation of a business, as “industrial action” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do3179, May 198, 200). Such industrial action is a collective act of workers and meets the requirements for the crime of interference with business by force under Article 314 of the Criminal Act; however, collective action for the purpose of improving working conditions, etc. is subject to special protection under the Constitution, and thus, it is not subject to criminal punishment only in the case of industrial action that mainly aims at improving working conditions that meet the requirements prescribed in the Constitution and relevant laws, and thus, it does not constitute a justifiable act of industrial action (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20005Do197.

(C) Constitutional special provisions on teachers, etc.

Article 33(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Trade Union Act may be deemed to be an “worker” of the same Act. However, Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that “the right to organize an association with respect to teachers and the right to collective bargaining activities for the purpose of improving working conditions, but Article 31 of the same Act provides that “the right to organize an association and the right to collective bargaining activities for the purpose of improving the basic rights of teachers shall be established in a whole or in a metropolitan area other than an individual workplace” under Article 31(1) of the Constitution.” Article 31(6) of the Constitution provides that “the basic matters concerning teachers’ status, including remuneration and working conditions, shall be prescribed by the Act.” As such, Article 31(6) of the Constitution provides that “the right to organize an association with respect to teachers may be established in preference to Article 33(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea concerning the basic rights of teachers.” Article 31(6) of the same Act provides that “the right to collective action” shall be prohibited entirely or permitted.

(3) Of the lower judgment, as to the restriction on the activities of pre-school aid within the school boundary line

(A) As to the prohibition of the act of the designated parties of demonstration or farming or of bringing in or keeping various goods for demonstration within the school boundary without the school principal's approval

1) Summary of the grounds of appeal

As a matter of principle, Article 8 of the Teachers' Unions Act applies to teachers' trade unions as it is. Although Article 8 of the same Act provides that teachers shall not be allowed to take any industrial action, it is in violation of the Constitution because the essential contents, such as the right to collective action of teachers, are infringed upon if the above provision of the Act is applied as it is, however, it is unlawful for the court below to prohibit the designated parties from taking agriculture or demonstration by means of installing a tent without the consent of the principal of the school within the boundary of the school, and to prohibit them from bringing in and keeping various goods for demonstration at the same time.

(ii) the board;

Unlike ordinary workers, it is not allowed under the current law to exercise the right of collective action for the improvement of working conditions. Thus, it is against Article 8 of the Teachers' Unions Act regardless of the time, place, method, etc. of collective action under the pretext of collective assistance. In light of the correlation between Articles 21, 31, 33, and 37 of the Constitution as seen above, it is difficult for the court to deem that unconstitutional situations occur by applying Article 8 of the Teachers' Unions Act based on the special provisions of the Constitution.

In this case, it is reasonable for the court below to approve the provisional disposition order on this part, inasmuch as the representative has been engaged in collective action such as farming or demonstration violating Article 8 of the Teachers' Labor Union Act against the intent of the applicant corporation, etc., who is the right to manage the facilities in each of the instant schools, and there is a risk of continuing such unlawful act, although it cannot include collective action that shows tangible power, such as "non-gradity or demonstration," etc. within the scope of activities of the teachers' trade union under the current law, and therefore, it is proved that there is a risk of continuing such act

(B) As to the prohibition of wearing and wearing spawn, spawn, spawn, and spawn, without the school principal’s approval within the boundary of the school

1) Summary of the grounds of appeal

Despite the fact that the aforementioned activities of the designated parties such as straws, badgess, and booms constitute collective acts related to the union's right to organize, it is unlawful for the court below to regard such activities as acts of the designated parties as acts of industrial action and to prohibit them.

(ii) the board;

According to the facts explained in this case, the act of wearing, wearing, and melting the above Ribs, Babs, and Babs is not merely an act for internal unity of a trade union, but an external collective action which shows tangible power against the applicants. In addition, even if the Ribs, Babs, and Babs' wearing, wearing, etc. are related to the "short right" as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the workers' right to organize, which is specially protected by the Constitution and Acts, should be the main purpose of improving working conditions. The court below, based on the facts in this case, prohibits the act of wearing, wearing, taking, or using the Ribs, Babs, and Babs, which is not subject to any restriction on the legitimate exercise of the right to organize, and therefore, it is just that the court below approved the provisional disposition decision in this part, and there is no ground for appeal on the premise that it is different opinion from the grounds of appeal (this case's ground of appeal, which is not proper for appeal).

(C) As to the prohibition of using school facilities as a place for pre-school assistance activities without the approval of the principal of the school

1) Summary of the grounds of appeal

In principle, the legal principles on teachers' trade unions are applied to teachers' unions, so it is unlawful to comprehensively prohibit the designated parties from engaging in pre-school activities in each school facility of this case which can be seen as an individual workplace to which the designated parties belong, because it denies the existence of a trade union that guarantees the right to organize and the right to collective action in accordance with the Constitution and laws. In this respect, it is unlawful to understand that the "right to manage facilities" concerning each school of this case belongs exclusively to the applicant corporation, etc., and further, it is unlawful to comprehensively prohibit pre-school activities in school facilities based on the applicant's right to manage the pre-school activities.

(ii) the board;

According to the current Act on the Trade Union of Teachers, a trade union can only be formed nationwide or in a City/Do, and a trade union cannot be formed in a subordinate unit (Article 4), and a collective bargaining right cannot be exercised for the purpose of "improvement of working conditions of only the teachers of a specific school" in the school units (or several school units belonging to a harshly identical school foundation) of various levels of schools. An applicant cannot independently respond to collective bargaining by a teachers' trade union (Article 6(1)). In this respect, there is a fundamental difference between the legal principles applicable to a general trade union that can exercise three labor rights for the purpose of improving working conditions of only the workers belonging to an individual workplace and the legal principles applicable to a teachers' trade union as seen above.

However, according to the evidence adopted by the court below, since the designated parties did not have any special relationship with the improvement of the working conditions against the intent of the applicant corporation, etc. in each school facility of this case, etc. of this case under the pretext of pre-school assistance activities, and it can be deemed that there is a risk of infringing upon the applicant's right to manage facilities, etc. of each school of this case by continuing various forms, which infringe on the applicant's personality rights, and on the basis of these facts, the court below's decision prohibiting the designated parties from using it as a place for pre-school assistance activities without the approval of the principal of the school of this case is acceptable in light of the purport of the current Act on the Assistance to Teachers to Teachers' Unions, etc. of this case. The pre-school assistant, who is a teachers' union of this case, can perform legitimate association activities within each school facility of this case with the approval of the principal (if the principal refuses the approval of the use of the school without any justifiable reason, it may be evaluated as abuse of authority), and since it can not be seen as exercising the right to collective bargaining activities against the designated parties.

(4) Of the judgment below, the part of prohibiting the designated parties from infringing on the personal rights of applicants before the students during class hours

(A) Summary of the grounds of appeal

The judgment of the court below on this part is in violation of the principle of respect for the expertise and autonomy of education provided in Article 31(4) of the Constitution, which restricts the contents of the class in advance and comprehensively without sufficiently explaining the right to be preserved, etc.

(b) the sales board;

First of all, the lower judgment on this part is merely a limited ban on the designated parties’ personal rights, etc. during class hours, and it is apparent that the purport of comprehensively restricting the class contents of the designated parties is not to be the purport of comprehensively limiting the class contents, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, the freedom of speech, etc. under Article 21 of the Constitution is confirmed in terms of the Constitution, rather than absolute freedom, and there are limits in itself that may not infringe on other persons’ honor or rights, public morals or social ethics. Furthermore, the autonomy and specialization of education, etc. under Article 31(4) of the Constitution itself entails inherent responsibilities, etc. In an area where education on persons subject to education including children with an aesthetic ability, part of the freedom of speech, etc. can be restricted, but this is a reasonable regulation that is based on the express constitutional provisions (see Constitutional Court Order 89HunGa106, Jul. 22, 1991). Further, in this case where the designated parties have committed unlawful acts that infringe on the applicant’s personality rights in various forms, and it has been explained that there is a risk of infringing on the same legal interest by continuing such unlawful acts, the court below’s determination that the designated parties’ personality rights should not be comprehensively restricted, regardless of the time and place of school hours directly affecting education of students, and the purport of the court below’s judgment below’s decision is justified.

(5) As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the necessity of preservation

(A) Summary of the grounds of appeal

In making a provisional disposition that sets forth a temporary position prohibiting expressive act in advance, a careful judgment is required on the necessity of preserving the same such as balancing of interests. Despite the absence of a proper explanation on the necessity of preserving the same in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the provisional disposition decision.

(b) the sales board;

In relation to disputes between individual parties, the judicial branch does not constitute a prior censorship prohibited by Article 21(2) of the Constitution, but does not infringe on the fundamental contents of freedom of the press (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2000HunBa36, Aug. 30, 2001). The fact that there are sufficient supporting materials for the determination of facts by the court below is as shown above. In light of such factual basis, there is a risk that the designated parties may continue to engage in an insulting behavior that causes damage to the applicant's personality rights and a collective action that infringes on the right to manage facilities for the purpose of maintaining the school environment, and as such, there is a risk that the designated parties may suffer significant and significant damage, and there is a need to prohibit the designated parties from committing the unlawful act as effective and appropriate, and therefore, the court below did not err in the course of substantial balancing of interests, etc. conducted by the applicant's agent and respondent, and did not err in the judgment of the court below in the course of proceeding with the procedure of a provisional disposition.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that the necessity of preservation, etc. is recognized as stated in its holding is just, and contrary to this, the argument in the grounds of appeal, etc., which is based on the premise that the vindication on the necessity of preservation, etc. in this

5. Conclusion

The grounds of appeal are without merit, and all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)