경향신문 폐간사건의 법적 쟁점과 헌정사적 의의

This study comprehensively examines the so-called “Kyunghyang Shinmun Closure Case,” in which the Syngman Rhee administration revoked the newspaper’s publishing license in 1959 under U.S. Military Government Ordinance No. 88. While the government justified the measure by claiming that the newspaper had repeatedly committed illegal acts that threatened social order and public welfare, it was in fact an act of political retaliation against the newspaper’s critical reporting of the regime. This case stands as a representative example of the infringement of press freedom under the First Republic, symbolically demonstrating the constitutional status that freedom of the press holds within a democratic order. Freedom of the press transcends mere individual liberty, serving a vital public function in shaping the public sphere and facilitating democratic decision-making processes. This paper emphasizes that freedom of the press operates not merely as a guarantee of negative liberty, but also as an institutional prerequisite for democratic governance. From this perspective, the Kyunghyang Shinmun Closure Case normatively demonstrates how state power can restrict press freedom and the constitutional standards nacessary for imposing such limitations. Moreover, this study critically examines the constitutional reality of the First Republic, where the principle of separation of powers failed to function effectively. The judiciary was unable to provide effective checks against the executive’s press suppression, and its actions—including referring constitutional review to a non-functioning Constitutional Committee and belatedly reversing its stance only after the April 19 Revolution—clearly reveal the absence of judicial independence and political neutrality. In this regard, the Kyunghyang Shinmun Closure Case connects to contemporary concerns about the politicization of the judiciary and the judicialization of politics, demanding reflection on the meaning of judicial independence and political neutrality. This paper also examines the impact of the Kyunghyang Shinmun Closure Case on the development of Korea’s constitutional adjudication system. The Constitutional Committee of that era failed to function as an effective remedy for fundamental rights violations, which became a backdrop for strengthening the legitimacy of establishing the Constitutional Court in constitutional reform discussions after the April 19 Revolution. This case consequently promoted institutional reflection and reform discussions on major issues in the constitutional adjudication system, including the structure of constitutional adjudicatory bodies, the distribution of authority with the Supreme Court, and ensuring the effectiveness of fundamental rights protection. In conclusion, this paper interprets the Kyunghyang Shinmun Closure Case not just as a historical episode of press suppression, but as a living constitutional lesson for present and future constitutional practice from the perspectives of press freedom protection, the realization of separation of powers, and institutional reform of the constitutional adjudication system. Particularly in today’s context of transforming digital media environments and deepening political polarization, the protection of press freedom, judicial independence and political neutrality, and the stable operation of the constitutional adjudication system remain issues that require ongoing continuous discussion and institutional reform. This paper seeks to reflect on these constitutional imperatives through a reexamination of historical events.