Kim Kun-hee, the spouse of President-elect Yoon Seok-yeol, filed a civil suit for 100 million won in damages once morest Baek Eun-jong, CEO of Seoul Voice, and Lee Myung-soo, a reporter. On January 16th, following the broadcast of MBC’s ‘Straight”s so-called ‘Kim Gun-hee Recording File’, the voice of Seoul appeared on YouTube broadcasting related to the recorded file. Their rights, privacy rights, and voice rights have been seriously violated.”
As the lawsuit became known to the media and various rumors such as “political retaliation” emerged, Attorney Choi Ji-woo (Jinsol Law Firm), representing Mr. Kim Geon-hee, issued a statement on the 15th and said, “The Seoul Voice of America lawsuit is a civil lawsuit, and there is no political retaliation at all. no,” he said. Lawyer Choi criticized, “Since last year, Seoul’s Sound has broadcast false facts that are difficult to put into words, such as entertainment and entertainment,” and “(Seoul’s Voice) simply obtained and reported the recorded files. Rather, it was planned from the beginning and secretly recorded bilateral and multilateral conversations, clearly violating the Communications Secrets Protection Act,” he emphasized, emphasizing the inevitability of lawsuits.
Lawyer Choi said, “(The Voice of Seoul) ignored the scope of the court’s injunction and actually aired the entire recording. He criticized that it violated the constitutional right to personality and honor without regard to the court’s decision.
Lawyer Choi said, “I filed a claim for damages on January 17, right following the illegal broadcast, and since then, instead of making an apology, there are still false facts. Request appropriate follow-up measures such as withdrawal of broadcast content. The issue of withdrawing the cattle is something that will be reviewed following minimum measures are taken.”
Attorney Yang Tae-jeong (law firm Gwangya), representing Seoul Voice of Korea, issued a statement on the 15th and said, “Basically, recording between interlocutors is not illegal under the Communications Secret Protection Act, and Mr. After emphasizing that there is no problem with the broadcast, he said, “I am deeply concerned that Mr. Kim’s claim for large amounts of damages will infringe on the people’s right to know and curb the freedom of the press.”
He continued, “Kim Geon-hee’s side submitted only the decision to ban broadcasting, which he applied to MBC, not Seoul’s Voice, as evidence. is doing,” he countered. Lawyer Yang said, “Kim Geon-hee also applied for an injunction to ban broadcasting once morest Seoul Soori, and the Seoul Southern District Court in the provisional injunction case once morest Seoul Voice of Korea broadcasts a much wider range of content than in the injunction case once morest MBC. allowed to Accordingly, Seoul’s Voice has been broadcasting in compliance with the provisional injunction and not to violate it.”
Yang continued, “The court allowed almost all broadcasts on the grounds that Kim is a public figure as the spouse of a presidential candidate and that Kim’s views on political and social issues and media outlets are subject to the public’s right to know.” claimed that The decision of the Seoul Southern District Court, mentioned by lawyer Yang, came out on January 21, and the video that Kim Gun-hee took issue with falls on January 16. However, since the Seoul Central District Court and the Seoul Southern District Court have permitted a section that the Seoul Western District Law banned from broadcasting, this topic is expected to become an issue in the future.
