Applicant 1 et al. (Law Firm Future, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Respondent No. 1 and four others (Attorneys Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 14, 2004

1. As to the case of an appeal against this Court (case number omitted), the court shall authorize the provisional disposition made on April 8, 2004 by this Court as to the case of an appeal against the prohibition of defamation between the applicant and the respondent.

2. The respondent shall bear the costs of the petition.

Applicants: as shown in the Disposition.

The respondent has cancelled the provisional disposition order mentioned in Paragraph 1; the applicant's application for provisional disposition is dismissed.

1. Determination of provisional disposition;

A. On April 2, 2003, the applicant filed a provisional injunction against the respondent under the Seoul Central District Court (Case Number omitted). On May 15, 2003, the above court ordered the applicant to prohibit noise generation, interference with entry and exit, farming or demonstration among the purport of the applicant’s application, and decided to dismiss the remainder of the application.

B. In the appeal case of this court (case number omitted) where the applicant filed an appeal against the above decision, the applicant changed the purport of the claim, and the fact that this court accepted the changed purport of the application and made the decision of provisional disposition indicated in the order is obvious in the record.

2. Basic facts

According to the above 1 to 36 records on the wallet 1, 1 to 4, 1 to 4, 1 to 6, 14, 1 to 6, 1 to 4, 1 to 3, 4, 1 to 6, 4, 1 to 3, 4, 4, 1 to 3, 6, 4, 6, 1 to 3, 4, 6, 16, 1 to 3, 4, 6, 4, 6, 6, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 1, 3, 6, 3, 6, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6, 3, 6, 6, 3, and 4

3. Determination

A. We examine the following acts: (a) the designated parties asserted that the foundation’s corruption is agricultural; (b) the fluor wears the Ri and brin; or (c) the fluor of the same content.

Article 8 of the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Teachers' Unions and its members prohibit industrial actions by providing that a trade union and its members shall not conduct any industrial action that obstructs the normal operation of strike, work, and other services, and Article 6 subparagraph 1 of the School Health Act provides that no person shall conduct any act that impedes learning and school health and sanitation in excess of the regulatory standards under the Noise and Vibration Control Act. The attached Table 7-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Noise and Vibration Control Act provides that the daily living noise control standards in the vicinity of a school shall be 80 dB (A). Meanwhile, Article 61 (1) of the Private School Act provides that "When a trade union and its members violate this Act and other education-related Acts and subordinate statutes (Article 1(1)2), when they violate or neglect their duties (Article 2) or when they impair their dignity as a teacher regardless of whether it is inside or outside of their duties (Article 3)."

In addition, the designated students should be carefully informed so that they do not lose their dignity appropriate for their positions as educators who must set good example to students. In particular, since students of each school of this case are women with a strong honor, in collective expression of opinion, even though they have a duty to select the method of expression of opinion with more careful caution in consideration of the impact on students, they violated the right of learning of students and parents by installing a tent in the school and conducting non-educational acts such as farming.

Therefore, even if the above act of the designated parties is aimed at correcting the corruption of the applicant corporation and improving the educational environment, and it was illegal or inappropriate for the management of the school affairs of the applicant corporation, such act of the designated parties constitutes an unlawful act contrary to the above relevant laws and regulations, and it is likely that it constitutes a violation of the right to study of students and parents and constitutes a disciplinary cause under the Private School Act. Thus, the designated parties may file a claim against the designated parties for the prohibition of the above act.

On the other hand, the method and attitude of expressing the opinion that the freedom of assembly and expression should be guaranteed as much as possible as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution conflict with the freedom of expression in the case of excessive broad and comprehensive restriction on the designated parties' acts. Thus, even if the designated parties' acts are unlawful, it is necessary to specify specific acts within the necessary minimum scope and order prohibition. The purport of the application changed in the trial of the party is limited to the place of act within the school boundary, and the act of the designated parties' acts of seeking prohibition is specified, such as the wearing of a Ri or distribution, the wearing of a dog, the bulletin, the posting of a banner, and the installation of a banner, and the contents indicated in the object are limited to the phrases that adversely affect students as non-educational contents such as the "satching of the party foundation." Thus, even if citing this, it cannot be said that the designated parties' freedom of expression is excessively restricted.

In addition, the duties of teachers are directly guiding and educating them for the purpose of enhancing the sound character of students, and such duties are closely related to the right to receive education, which is the basic right of students, and the right to receive education, which is the basic right of students, which is the right of students, grow up as a personality body after learning through education from the time of his/her attitude. Therefore, considering the circumstances where it is difficult for the designated parties to apply the three labor rights of workers engaged in private enterprises as they are, even if such acts are prohibited, the essential contents of the right to organize or to act

B. Next, in relation to the obstruction of school access and the use of sports rooms, the applicants are school foundations and principals operating each of the schools of this case, and thus, they may request the prohibition of obstructing access to the school in accordance with the right to manage the facilities of each of the schools of this case and using the school facilities for purposes other than their original purpose without prior consent.

C. In addition, a letter to criticize the applicant on the Internet site operated by the designated parties is published, and an act of informing the applicant that he/she is corruption by using banners or diskettes in front of the chief director and the principal's office cannot be permitted as an act of impairing the applicant's reputation.

D. As to the necessity of preservation, there is an act entered in the order by the designated parties, and thereafter, it is recognized that there is a concern that the designated parties will continue the above act as a result of continuous conflict with the applicant, even though corrective measures have been taken according to the audit’s results by the Office of Education on each of the schools in this case, and therefore, there is a need to order the designated parties to prohibit such act as stated in the order.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the applicant's application for provisional disposition of this case is well-grounded, and it is reasonable to maintain the decision of provisional disposition of this case stated in the order, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List of Appointed]

Judges Dok-type (Presiding Judge)