Court rules district office's removal of banners urging investigation into Kim Kun-hee's wife ”illegal” - South Korea

A court has ruled that it was illegal for a district office to remove a Progressive Party banner calling for an investigation into Kim Gun-Hee, the wife of President Yoon Seok-yeol.
According to the legal community on the 10th, the Seoul Administrative Court's Administrative Division 2 filed a lawsuit against the Songpa-gu and Seodaemun-gu district heads of Seoul City, asking them to "revoke the order to remove party banners."
In January, the Songpa-gu and Seodaemun-gu offices removed a poster that the Progressive Party had put up on the streets, which read, "Those who refuse are the culprits. Investigate Mrs. Kim Kun-hee immediately."
The political party banner was removed. The district office found that the banner violated the Seoul City ordinance (at the time) which prohibited the display of a specific person's real name and libel or insult.
The court upheld the Progressive Party's hand, stating that the ordinance violated the principle of legal precedence. The court said that the ordinance's provisions did not conform to the Outdoor Advertising Act, which is a higher law, and therefore could not be used as a basis for disciplinary action.
The court stated, "In light of the amendment process and contents of the Outdoor Advertising Law, the law directly regulates matters related to the display and installation of political party banners, and requires uniform and uniform regulation throughout the country.
"The purpose of this act is to regulate party banners in an organized manner. This act does not delegate the right to decide matters related to party banners through subordinate ordinances."
He continued, "By its very nature, regulations regarding party banners are matters that local governments can regulate by ordinance without delegation of power to the government by law.
The ordinance provisions in this case, which are stricter than those stipulated in the Outdoor Advertising Act, are illegal.
The court also ruled that local government ordinances that forced advertising to be restricted to outdoor advertisements violated the higher-level Outdoor Advertising Act.