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

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Chun Dae-yup) delivered this ruling today (the 3rd) in the final appeal of a discrimination relief lawsuit filed by two visually impaired plaintiffs, including a person surnamed Kim, and two hearing-impaired plaintiffs against CJ CGV, Lotte Cultureworks, and Megabox, overturning the lower court's ruling and remanding the case to the Seoul High Court.

The Supreme Court explained, "The defendants' failure to provide screen narratives, subtitles, and their receiving equipment to the plaintiffs constitutes an act of discrimination prohibited under the Act on Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities."

The Supreme Court stated, "To substantially guarantee the rights of people with disabilities, active measures are required at the social and state levels," adding, "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."

In particular, the Supreme Court deemed it erroneous that the second instance court acknowledged the discriminatory act but restrictively recognized the obligation to provide corresponding conveniences by redundantly applying the criteria for the number of screenings and the scope of screening rooms.

Previously, the Seoul High Court, which handled the second trial in November 2021, ruled, "Provide subtitles and screen narratives at a frequency equivalent to 3 percent of the total number of screenings in screening rooms with 300 or more seats."

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

However, the Supreme Court ruled on this day, "It is difficult to accept that the lower court applied the criteria for the number of screenings and the scope of screening rooms redundantly, as this excessively considered only the financial burdens of the defendants."

This means the second instance court failed to properly weigh and balance competing interests: guaranteeing the right to information and the right to enjoy movies for people with disabilities versus property rights or economic freedoms of movie theater operators.

The Supreme Court explained that the lower court should have examined what criteria would substantially help eradicate cultural discrimination against people with disabilities without causing excessive confusion to non-disabled people, and whether there are means to reduce the financial burden on operators while allowing people with disabilities to enjoy movies on an equal footing with non-disabled people.

The Supreme Court has sent the case back to the lower court for a re-trial.

Kim and others filed a lawsuit against the three multiplex companies, including CJ CGV, in February 2016, demanding that "subtitles or screen narratives be provided for all movies screened."

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 trial ruled that the defendants must provide screen narratives for the visually impaired and subtitles for the hearing-impaired.

It also ordered them to provide screening information for movies with subtitles or screen narratives through their websites, and to offer necessary means such as braille materials, large-print documents, Korean sign language interpretation, or text inside the screening rooms.

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

The final ruling of the Supreme Court on this day came approximately five years after the case was appealed due to objections from both sides.

Meanwhile, this ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court provided an "easy-read" judgment.

To make it easy for anyone to understand the contents of the ruling, it was written in plain language, such as, "The Seoul High Court judged wrongly. The Supreme Court is sending this case back to the Seoul High Court."

Sign language interpretation was also supported for the plaintiffs, who are hearing-impaired and speech-impaired, during this ruling.

(Photo: Yonhap News)