Case on Taking a Temporary Measure on the Information Disclosed via Information and Communications Network [2016Hun-Ma275, 2016Hun-Ma606, 2019Hun-Ma199 (consolidated), November 26, 2020] In this case, the Court held that the part “temporary measure” of Article 44-2 Section 2 and Section 4 of the said provision of Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. – which require a provider of information and communications services to take, for a period not exceeding 30 days, a temporary measure of blocking access to information publicly disclosed through an information and communications network if such information invades privacy, defames reputation, or violates a right of an individual in other ways, if the individual requests for deletion of such information, and if it is difficult for the provider to ascertain the violation of the individual’s right or the provider anticipates that a dispute will arise between the interested parties with respect to such information – do not infringe on the freedom of expression of Complainants. Background of the Case A blog post by Complainant Kim ○○ (of 2016Hun-Ma275 case), published on Complainant’s blog, was put under a measure that temporarily blocks its public access (hereinafter, “temporary measure”) by the provider of information and communications services △△ Inc. upon the request from □□ Inc. to suspend the post. A blog post by Complainant Lim ◆◆ (of 2016Hun-Ma606 case), published on Complainant’s blog, was put under the temporary measure by the provider of information and communications services ♠♠ Inc. upon the request from Pastor Oh ◉◉ and ★★ Church Foundation to delete the post. - 131 -