Court dismisses TBS union's lawsuit over city funding removal

A lawsuit by the TBS labor union challenging the Ministry of Interior and Safety's decision to remove the broadcasting station from the Seoul Metropolitan Government's list of affiliated institutions has been dismissed by the court. The Seoul Administrative Court ruled on June 10 that the union did not have the legal standing to bring the case.

The court determined that the Ministry's decision directly affected TBS itself, not its employees or labor union. While the removal from the affiliated institutions list means TBS will lose its legal basis for receiving financial support from the Seoul Metropolitan Government, the court found that any impact on the union's working conditions or broadcasting rights was indirect and factual, rather than a direct infringement of legal rights.

“

The Ministry of Interior and Safety's notice to remove TBS from the list of local government-invested and funded institutions is directed at TBS.

This ruling effectively upholds the Ministry of Interior and Safety's decision, made in September 2024, to de-list TBS. The Ministry cited the Seoul Metropolitan Council's earlier repeal of the ordinance supporting TBS funding as the basis for its action. The union had argued that the de-listing was unlawful, particularly because it was done without proper consultation with the relevant broadcasting authority, the Korea Communications Commission.

The dismissal of the lawsuit signifies a significant blow to TBS, which has relied on Seoul City funding since 2020. The decision solidifies the cessation of financial support from the city, potentially leading to major operational changes for the broadcasting station.

“

Even if TBS's revenue decreases due to the loss of legal grounds to receive funding from the Seoul Metropolitan Government, the impact on the working conditions, freedom of broadcasting, or programming rights of the plaintiffs, who are TBS employees and labor union members, is an indirect and factual effect, and it is difficult to consider it a direct infringement of the plaintiffs' legal interests.