Supreme Court Rules Movie Theaters Must Provide Screen Commentaries and Subtitles for Visually and Hearing-Impaired Viewers

The Supreme Court has ruled that the failure of cinema operators to provide screen commentaries and subtitles for visually and hearing-impaired individuals constitutes an act of discrimination against people with disabilities.

While acknowledging the obligation of movie theater operators to provide screen commentaries and subtitles, the Supreme Court has ordered a lower court to re-examine the case regarding the restricted scope of such accommodations.

The Supreme Court determined that the appellate court's overlapping application of criteria concerning screening counts and the scope of screening rooms excessively focused on the financial burdens of the businesses.

This Supreme Court decision comes 10 years and 6 months after plaintiffs with disabilities filed the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court's First Division (presiding Justice Chun Dae-yup) overturned the original appellate ruling and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court in an appeal filed by two visually impaired individuals, including a person surnamed Kim, and two hearing-impaired individuals against CJ CGV, Lotte Cultureworks, and Megabox JoongAng.

The Supreme Court explained, "The failure of the defendants to provide the plaintiffs with screen commentaries, subtitles, and their receiving devices constitutes a discriminatory act prohibited under the Act on Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities."

It further stated, "Active measures at the social and state levels are required to substantively guarantee the rights of people with disabilities."

The court also judged that "even though the Constitution guarantees the property rights and economic freedoms of individuals and enterprises, it is inevitable to restrict these freedoms within a certain scope."

The Supreme Court notably found fault with the appellate court's restrictive recognition of the obligation to provide accommodations despite acknowledging the discriminatory act.

In November 2021, the Seoul High Court, which handled the second trial, ruled that "subtitles and screen commentaries must be provided at a frequency equivalent to 3 percent of the total screenings in screening rooms with 300 or more seats."

The rationale was that exceeding this could impose excessive burdens on movie theater operators.

However, the Supreme Court stated today (3rd) that "it is difficult to accept that the lower court applied overlapping criteria for screening counts and the scope of screening rooms, as it excessively considered only the financial burdens of the defendants."

This indicates that the second instance court failed to properly compare and weigh conflicting interests: guaranteeing the right to information and the enjoyment of movies for people with disabilities versus property rights or economic freedoms of cinema operators.

The Supreme Court judged that the lower court should have examined what standards would substantially help eradicate cultural discrimination against people with disabilities without causing excessive confusion to non-disabled individuals.

It added that the court should have also reviewed whether there are means to reduce the financial burdens of operators while allowing people with disabilities to enjoy movies on an equal footing with non-disabled people.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the appellate court for a re-examination.

In February 2016, Kim and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against three multiplex companies including CJ CGV, demanding that "subtitles or screen commentaries be provided for all projected movies."

In December of the following year, the 28th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court accepted all of the plaintiffs' claims in the first trial.

The first instance court ordered cinema operators to provide screen commentaries for visually impaired individuals and subtitles for hearing-impaired individuals.

It mandated that screening information for movies featuring commentaries or subtitles be provided via websites.

Additionally, it ruled that necessary means such as braille materials, large-print documents, Korean sign language interpretation, or text should be supplied in screening rooms.

The Seoul High Court, which handled the second trial in November 2021, also acknowledged the discriminatory act but reduced the scope of accommodations compared to the first trial.

The Supreme Court ruling on the appeal came approximately 5 years after the case was received by the Supreme Court following appeals from both sides.

For this ruling, the Supreme Court provided its first-ever "easy-read" judgment.

This method involves drafting rulings so anyone can easily understand the contents, using phrases such as, "The Seoul High Court ruled incorrectly.

The Supreme Court sends this case back to the Seoul High Court."

Sign language interpretation was also provided for the plaintiffs, who include hearing-impaired and hearing-and-speech-impaired individuals, during this ruling.

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.