Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Claims for Injunction Based on the Right to Reputation and Requirements for Allowing Preliminary Injunctions Prohibiting the Publication and Sale of Publications
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Jan. 17, 2005, 2003Ma1477 (ruling)
Case name: 서적발행판매반포등금지가처분
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May the prior restraint of expressive acts, such as the publication and sale of publications, be sought on the basis of the right to reputation as a personality right, and under what requirements is such prior restraint allowed?
Holding
A person whose reputation has been unlawfully infringed may seek, on the basis of the right to reputation, the removal of a current infringement or the prohibition of a future infringement. However, a prohibition on the publication and sale of publications amounts to a prior restraint on expressive acts and is therefore in principle not allowed; it is exceptionally allowed only where the content of the expression is not true or is not solely for the public interest, and is likely to cause the victim serious and manifest damage that is difficult to remedy.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 표현내용이 진실이 아니거나 그것이 공공의 이해에 관한 사항으로서 그 목적이 오로지 공공의 이익을 위한 것이 아니며, 또한 피해자에게 중대하고 현저하게 회복하기 어려운 손해를 입힐 우려가 있는 경우에는 그와 같은 표현행위는 그 가치가 피해자의 명예에 우월하지 아니하는 것이 명백하고
Unofficial English translation
where the content of such expression is not true, or where, although it is a matter of public interest, its purpose is not solely for the public interest, and there is a risk that it will inflict upon the victim a serious and remarkable loss that is difficult to restore, such expressive act is clearly not superior in value to the victim's honor, and
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
재항고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The re-appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이러한 실체적인 요건을 갖춘 때에 한하여 예외적으로 사전금지가 허용된다.
Unofficial English translation
Only when these substantive requirements are met is a prior restraint exceptionally permitted.
Factors
- 그 표현내용이 진실이 아니거나
- 그 목적이 오로지 공공의 이익을 위한 것이 아니며
- 피해자에게 중대하고 현저하게 회복하기 어려운 손해를 입힐 우려가 있는 경우
- 유효적절한 구제수단으로서 금지의 필요성도 인정되므로
Unofficial English translation
• the content of such expression is not true, or
• its purpose is not solely for the public interest, and
• where there is a risk that it will inflict upon the victim a serious and remarkable loss that is difficult to restore,
• and because the necessity of an injunction as an effective and appropriate remedy is also recognized,
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
엄격하고 명확한 요건을 갖춘 경우에만 허용된다고 할 것인바
Unofficial English translation
it may be permitted only in cases where strict and clear requirements are met,
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1996. 4. 12. 선고 93다40614, 40621 판결(공1996상, 1486), 대법원 1997. 10. 24. 선고 96다17851 판결(공1997하, 3574)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Is it sufficient that each of the requirement that the content of the expression is not true and the requirement that it is not solely for the public interest is independently satisfied, and what, specifically, are the exceptional circumstances that permit a provisional disposition prohibiting prior restraint without a hearing date?
This reading will be rechecked if a subsequent Supreme Court decision or en banc determination is handed down concerning the requirements for a provisional disposition prohibiting prior restraint of expressive acts or the interpretation of the prohibition on prior censorship under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by another family of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 6 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on Axis 6 (Relation to precedent) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Follows earlier decisions”
If attention is paid to the articulation of the specific requirements for prior restraint in the text, it may be read as stating a new standard; if attention is paid to the exposition deriving the requirements from the Constitution and the general legal principle of the right to reputation, it may be read as following earlier decisions, but the relation to precedent is not expressly stated.
대법원 1996. 4. 12. 선고 93다40614, 40621 판결(공1996상, 1486)Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Is it sufficient that each of the requirement that the content of the expression is not true and the requirement that it is not solely for the public interest is independently satisfied, and what, specifically, are the exceptional circumstances that permit a provisional disposition prohibiting prior restraint without a hearing date?” vs Independent “What specific circumstances are required for the damage caused by infringement of reputation to be recognized as serious, manifest, and irreparable?”
The first reading asks about the relationship between the truthfulness requirement and the public-interest-purpose requirement, and about the exception to a provisional disposition without a hearing, whereas the independent reading asks about the specific standard for recognizing serious and irreparable harm.
그 표현내용이 진실이 아니거나 그것이 공공의 이해에 관한 사항으로서 그 목적이 오로지 공공의 이익을 위한 것이 아니며, 또한 피해자에게 중대하고 현저하게 회복하기 어려운 손해를 입힐 우려가 있는 경우에는 그와 같은 표현행위는 그 가치가 피해자의 명예에 우월하지 아니하는 것이 명백하고Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below upheld the first-instance decision dismissing the application, holding that the criticism contained in the books of Debtor 1 constituted an expressive act of religious criticism that was not unlawful, that the binding work of Debtor 2 was likewise not unlawful, that there was therefore no prima facie showing of the right to be preserved, and that, since prior restrictions on freedom of expression must be allowed only exceptionally, the necessity of preservation was also difficult to recognize.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court noted that the reasoning of the court below was somewhat insufficient or inappropriate, but held that its holding could be understood to mean that there was an insufficient prima facie showing that the content of the expression was not true or did not concern solely the public interest; it therefore accepted the conclusion and dismissed the reappeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases where the subject of the prohibition is not a prior restraint on expressive acts preceding publication, but a claim for post hoc damages or for measures to restore reputation in respect of expression already made
- Cases where it is prima facie shown that the content of the expression is false, is unrelated to the public interest, and there is a clear likelihood of serious and irreparable harm to the victim
- Cases where a procedural defect in failing to hold a hearing date, or an oral argument date at which the debtor could appear, in the provisional disposition proceedings is at issue
Record verification notes
Before asserting that a prior restraint is allowed, it must be confirmed that the truthfulness of the content of the expression, whether the matter concerns the public interest and its purpose, and the likelihood of irreparable harm have all been prima facie shown, and that there is a need for prohibition because post hoc remedies alone are insufficient.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 인격권으로서의 명예권에 기초하여 가해자에 대해 현재의 침해행위의 배제 또는 장래의 침해행위의 금지를 청구할 수 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 언론·출판 등의 표현행위에 대한 사전금지가 허용되는 경우
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, based on the right to reputation, one of the personality rights, a claim may be made against the tortfeasor for exclusion of the current act of infringement or for prohibition of future acts of infringement (affirmative) [2] Cases in which a prior restraint on expressive acts such as the press and publication is permitted
Summary of the holding
[1] 명예는 생명, 신체와 함께 매우 중대한 보호법익이고 인격권으로서의 명예권은 물권의 경우와 마찬가지로 배타성을 가지는 권리라고 할 것이므로 사람의 품성, 덕행, 명성, 신용 등의 인격적 가치에 관하여 사회로부터 받는 객관적인 평가인 명예를 위법하게 침해당한 자는 손해배상 또는 명예회복을 위한 처분을 구할 수 있는 이외에 인격권으로서 명예권에 기초하여 가해자에 대하여 현재 이루어지고 있는 침해행위를 배제하거나 장래에 생길 침해를 예방하기 위하여 침해행위의 금지를 구할 수도 있다. [2] 표현행위에 대한 사전억제는 표현의 자유를 보장하고 검열을 금지하는 헌법 제21조 제2항의 취지에 비추어 엄격하고 명확한 요건을 갖춘 경우에만 허용된다고 할 것인바, 출판물에 대한 발행·판매 등의 금지는 위와 같은 표현행위에 대한 사전억제에 해당하고, 그 대상이 종교단체에 관한 평가나 비판 등의 표현행위에 관한 것이라고 하더라도 그 표현행위에 대한 사전금지는 원칙적으로 허용되어서는 안 될 것이지만, 다만 그와 같은 경우에도 그 표현내용이 진실이 아니거나 그것이 공공의 이해에 관한 사항으로서 그 목적이 오로지 공공의 이익을 위한 것이 아니며, 또한 피해자에게 중대하고 현저하게 회복하기 어려운 손해를 입힐 우려가 있는 경우에는 그와 같은 표현행위는 그 가치가 피해자의 명예에 우월하지 아니하는 것이 명백하고, 또 그에 대한 유효적절한 구제수단으로서 금지의 필요성도 인정되므로 이러한 실체적인 요건을 갖춘 때에 한하여 예외적으로 사전금지가 허용된다.
Order
재항고를 기각한다. 재항고비용은 채권자가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The re-appeal is dismissed. The costs of the re-appeal shall be borne by the creditor.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사집행법 제300조 제2항, 민법 제751조, 제764조 [2] 헌법 제21조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger