All about Korean No Kids Zone system (wiki)
1. Overview
The Korean expression is No Kids Zone, and in the English-speaking world, it is called Kids-free zone (here, 'free' means 'without', more precisely, 'free from', like sugar-free).
In other words, it means a place where children are restricted from entering. Restaurants are often examples of this. In the stores, a notice such as 'Children under the age of n and elementary school students are not allowed to enter this store and cannot enter without an adult guardian' is posted on the front.
Currently, there are about 500 No Kids Zones in Korea. #
In other words, it means a place where children are restricted from entering. Restaurants are often examples of this. In the stores, a notice such as 'Children under the age of n and elementary school students are not allowed to enter this store and cannot enter without an adult guardian' is posted on the front.
Currently, there are about 500 No Kids Zones in Korea. #
2. Appearance time
It is a term that started to become popular from July to August 2014. It literally means that infants and children between the ages of 4 and 13 are prohibited from entering. Overseas, businesses that have already established these regulations (businesses that provide services to many people in public places such as restaurants and movie theaters). Also, in the case of overseas, some museums Some airlines also operate 'No Kids Day', which prohibits children from entering for one day at regular intervals. (Quiet Zone) . Of course, like AirAsia X's 'Quiet Zone', Scoot also introduced a 'Scoot in Silence' for children under the age of 12 boarding. This impossible No Kids Zone was introduced. Of course, overseas is also dependent on overseas. There are cases in which there are more establishments with similar concepts to No Kids Zone, such as in Korea and the United States, but on the contrary, like in Northern Europe, making a No Kids Zone is legally or in terms of national sentiment. In some cases, this is almost impossible: in Finland, for example, there are more stores that accept children by default, except for some stores that are unavoidably adult-only ( OhmyNews article).) Of course, even if they are more spacious than Korea, it is relative, and if they cause excessive nuisance, of course they give a warning and kick them out. Let's say, businesses that introduce it in Korea have been created one after another. No Kids Zone rejects children who are 'neglected without manners' (SBS 8 News, August 6, 2015)
Controversy over the No Kids Zone is said to be severe even overseas. Article It is expected that the purpose of No Kids Zone will fade as takeout orders increase due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, under the influence of social distancing, PC rooms nationwide became the first government-led No Kids Zone. On the other hand, from January 8, 2021, indoor sports facilities nationwide became government-led only kids zones for 9 or fewer people.
Controversy over the No Kids Zone is said to be severe even overseas. Article It is expected that the purpose of No Kids Zone will fade as takeout orders increase due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, under the influence of social distancing, PC rooms nationwide became the first government-led No Kids Zone. On the other hand, from January 8, 2021, indoor sports facilities nationwide became government-led only kids zones for 9 or fewer people.
3. Reason
Responsibilities of ignorant parents who irresponsibly look at or neglect children who are thoughtful and immature, and children who cause harm to others, and a court ruling holding business owners unconditionally responsibleThis can be attributed to .
The precedent ultimately excluded parents' duty of care, tolerated damage to other users, and imposed no-fault liability on business owners. Therefore, it is rather beneficial not to receive children and their parents themselves as guests.
Already from the 1990s, the drip "Why are you killing my baby? " was starting to become a problem widely in PC communication, and nevertheless, it got worse and worse, resulting in a no-kids zone. As a result, sales increased and employee satisfaction increased significantly. Of course, it had to be spread all over the country.
The surest response to this phenomenon would be to hold the parents accountable for not managing their children properly, rather than holding the owner accountable after confirming the causal relationship through CCTV. The counterargument written below claims that if the No Kids Zone spreads, it can lead to discriminatory acts such as forbidding other people to enter without permission because the owner is dissatisfied . It is a remark that overlooks the fact that there is no negligence, but we must take responsibility anyway” is a ridiculous court ruling.
The cause of the emergence of No Kids Zone and its spread to this extent is not simply 'because the owner does not like it'. In the first place, due to the nature of the service industry, screening customers simply because 'the owner doesn't like it' will lead to loss of sales in most cases. It is natural that there is no way sales will go up if a normal customer refuses to come in. Nevertheless, the reason why the No Kids Zone is prevalent is that rather than the fatigue and risk caused by the damage caused to other guests by not restraining these infants and the enormous compensation that will result from unwanted injuries to the child, by doing the No Kids Zone, we do not restrain such children and children. This is because the merits of not receiving unconceived parents are higher.
The precedent ultimately excluded parents' duty of care, tolerated damage to other users, and imposed no-fault liability on business owners. Therefore, it is rather beneficial not to receive children and their parents themselves as guests.
Already from the 1990s, the drip "Why are you killing my baby? " was starting to become a problem widely in PC communication, and nevertheless, it got worse and worse, resulting in a no-kids zone. As a result, sales increased and employee satisfaction increased significantly. Of course, it had to be spread all over the country.
The surest response to this phenomenon would be to hold the parents accountable for not managing their children properly, rather than holding the owner accountable after confirming the causal relationship through CCTV. The counterargument written below claims that if the No Kids Zone spreads, it can lead to discriminatory acts such as forbidding other people to enter without permission because the owner is dissatisfied . It is a remark that overlooks the fact that there is no negligence, but we must take responsibility anyway” is a ridiculous court ruling.
The cause of the emergence of No Kids Zone and its spread to this extent is not simply 'because the owner does not like it'. In the first place, due to the nature of the service industry, screening customers simply because 'the owner doesn't like it' will lead to loss of sales in most cases. It is natural that there is no way sales will go up if a normal customer refuses to come in. Nevertheless, the reason why the No Kids Zone is prevalent is that rather than the fatigue and risk caused by the damage caused to other guests by not restraining these infants and the enormous compensation that will result from unwanted injuries to the child, by doing the No Kids Zone, we do not restrain such children and children. This is because the merits of not receiving unconceived parents are higher.
4. Arguments
4.1. child protection
4.1.1. agree
There is an opinion that the No Kids Zone may be needed for children. It is true that there are quite a few places that are dangerous and problematic for children, although they are not a big problem for adults, such as places where hot firearms are handled, such as meat restaurants, and food courts where there is a risk of collision due to crowds of people. In addition, parents who have common sense and are considerate of others tend to avoid such places in consideration of the safety of their children and others, so the No Kids Zone is rather a measure for children. For example, there was an accident where hot soup fell on a child's face. It turned out that this incident was a lie, but if it had actually happened, the child would have suffered severe mental and physical harm. In other words, it will be safer for the child if the child does not go to such a place.
As a clear example of this, there is a Supreme Court ruling regarding the public bathhouse owner refusing to use facilities for blind and visually impaired people due to the expected danger (to determine whether refusing to enter a public bathhouse for blind, visually impaired people not accompanied by a guardian of the same sex constitutes discrimination). Whether or not. Supreme Court decision 2012da60787 sentenced on September 27, 2012. The judgment of the first trial was cited because the appeal was dismissed.) The court sided with the owner of the public bathhouse. According to Paragraph 3 of Article 18 of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, 'rejection shall not be made without a justifiable reason.' It was regarded as a 'legitimate reason' for refusing to use the facility. In addition, public baths are subject to Article 18, Paragraph 4.It was regarded as a facility that did not fall under . Lastly, since the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities lists the contents of the obligation to provide legitimate convenience in a limited manner, the business owner is not obliged to provide convenience that exceeds the content.
There are cases in which minority opinions in the progressive and labor circles criticize this ruling, saying, 'It is a judgment that does not understand the purpose of the Disability Discrimination Act.' It is also a reality that forcing them to be equipped is an unparalleled measure of harshness, and there is an exception to this in the Disability Discrimination Act right now. It was also true that the position of the minority theory seemed somewhat far-fetched, so it was not greatly controversial. For example, in the case of the 'bathroom' that appears in the ruling, in order to make a decision and provide convenience, you must hire a free bath helper for the blind and visually impaired while paying your own money (paid is discrimination). It is a very harsh condition at the level of a local public bathhouse. In the end, if a user is in danger as a result of using it, he or she can sufficiently refuse to use it.
As a clear example of this, there is a Supreme Court ruling regarding the public bathhouse owner refusing to use facilities for blind and visually impaired people due to the expected danger (to determine whether refusing to enter a public bathhouse for blind, visually impaired people not accompanied by a guardian of the same sex constitutes discrimination). Whether or not. Supreme Court decision 2012da60787 sentenced on September 27, 2012. The judgment of the first trial was cited because the appeal was dismissed.) The court sided with the owner of the public bathhouse. According to Paragraph 3 of Article 18 of the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, 'rejection shall not be made without a justifiable reason.' It was regarded as a 'legitimate reason' for refusing to use the facility. In addition, public baths are subject to Article 18, Paragraph 4.It was regarded as a facility that did not fall under . Lastly, since the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities lists the contents of the obligation to provide legitimate convenience in a limited manner, the business owner is not obliged to provide convenience that exceeds the content.
There are cases in which minority opinions in the progressive and labor circles criticize this ruling, saying, 'It is a judgment that does not understand the purpose of the Disability Discrimination Act.' It is also a reality that forcing them to be equipped is an unparalleled measure of harshness, and there is an exception to this in the Disability Discrimination Act right now. It was also true that the position of the minority theory seemed somewhat far-fetched, so it was not greatly controversial. For example, in the case of the 'bathroom' that appears in the ruling, in order to make a decision and provide convenience, you must hire a free bath helper for the blind and visually impaired while paying your own money (paid is discrimination). It is a very harsh condition at the level of a local public bathhouse. In the end, if a user is in danger as a result of using it, he or she can sufficiently refuse to use it.
4.1.2. the opposite
Restaurants that handle heavy utensils such as earthenware pots and stone pot bibimbap that even adults must pay attention to, restaurants that handle dangerous fuel such as charcoal and briquettes, and hot and heavy grills such as grilled meat or chicken ribs, or cafes that serve hot coffee In the same case, it is definitely better in terms of safety if children do not go. However, in the case of restaurants such as Baekbanjip and Bakery, there is no basis to believe that children's entry is so dangerous. From a realistic and moral point of view, it can be said that it is an excessive opinion to tie safety issues and child protection to this extent. In most restaurants, there is no problem as long as the guardian pays attention. In addition, it is not a restaurant with really dangerous tableware or environment, but a relatively low-risk cafe (once the population density is low, and usually a lid is provided so that the drink does not flow, so unlike the prejudice that it is dangerous to handle hot water, the risk is low It is an opinion that has forgotten that 'no kids zones' are usually formed in places where mothers usually take their children to meet other mothers, such as fast food restaurants.
It's basically just a restaurant if it's dangerous for a child. If it's enough to be in danger simply because a child goes there, in fact, the place becomes a very dangerous place for adults too. Nevertheless, there are no restrictions for adults, and rather, a place where drinking is possible is a restaurant. Forming a no-kids zone for reasons of risk is nonsense, at least from a legal point of view.
In fact, the formation of a no-kids zone occurs because guardians do not properly control children. Even if it's not a restaurant, but an open playground, if you don't look properly and run or play around, accidents such as bumping into other people are bound to happen. Therefore, guardians must educate or control children to protect them from danger, but since this is not realistically done, even places that do not seem dangerous at all, such as 'bakery' and 'baekbanjip', are designated as no-kids zones.
As a result, the formation of the no-kids zone is due to the neglect of the guardian's duty to protect and the resulting nuisance. From a realistic point of view, the business owner does not form a no-kids zone to protect children. Nevertheless, claiming that the purpose of the No Kids Zone is 'protection of children' can be said to be two-headed.
It's basically just a restaurant if it's dangerous for a child. If it's enough to be in danger simply because a child goes there, in fact, the place becomes a very dangerous place for adults too. Nevertheless, there are no restrictions for adults, and rather, a place where drinking is possible is a restaurant. Forming a no-kids zone for reasons of risk is nonsense, at least from a legal point of view.
In fact, the formation of a no-kids zone occurs because guardians do not properly control children. Even if it's not a restaurant, but an open playground, if you don't look properly and run or play around, accidents such as bumping into other people are bound to happen. Therefore, guardians must educate or control children to protect them from danger, but since this is not realistically done, even places that do not seem dangerous at all, such as 'bakery' and 'baekbanjip', are designated as no-kids zones.
As a result, the formation of the no-kids zone is due to the neglect of the guardian's duty to protect and the resulting nuisance. From a realistic point of view, the business owner does not form a no-kids zone to protect children. Nevertheless, claiming that the purpose of the No Kids Zone is 'protection of children' can be said to be two-headed.
4.2. whether it is illegal
It is true that it is clearly illegal to discriminate and prohibit only the disabled, but it is known that the current law of the Republic of Korea has not specifically determined whether or not the No Kids Zone is illegal. In the case of No Kids Zone, it is a system that is mostly implemented in private, private, or private lands rather than national or public facilities. Until now, cases where the owner has been punished for violating the No Kids Zone Act, except for cases where the owner has been punished under the Juvenile Protection Act related to the No Youth Zone among derived zones. If so, it is known to be very rare.
In the case of national and public facilities, they are operated with the taxpayers' money from the citizens, city and county residents, so there is a level of compensation and consideration for them., other private and private facilities or privately owned lands, on the contrary, are mostly taxpayers who are obliged to pay taxes to the state and region, and operate shops freely without any interference except for state or administrative permission. It is a matter arbitrarily decided by the owners and owners, so it is not considered illegal unless it is unauthorized, tax evasion, or intentional criminal accident by the owner.
In the case of national and public facilities, they are operated with the taxpayers' money from the citizens, city and county residents, so there is a level of compensation and consideration for them., other private and private facilities or privately owned lands, on the contrary, are mostly taxpayers who are obliged to pay taxes to the state and region, and operate shops freely without any interference except for state or administrative permission. It is a matter arbitrarily decided by the owners and owners, so it is not considered illegal unless it is unauthorized, tax evasion, or intentional criminal accident by the owner.
4.3. discriminatory debate
Most of the contents in this paragraph cannot be seen as an article about the controversy of whether or not to discriminate. Discrimination begins with the characteristics of individuals or groups, but most of the contents deal with the characteristics of behavior rather than the characteristics of individuals. For example, crime or drunkenness is a characteristic due to an act. Among the contents of the paragraph, examples of race and gender are examples of dealing with the characteristics of individuals or groups. It is reasonable to say that the text of the paragraph is rather close to the content of individual rights (financial/unobstructed) and discrimination.
4.3.1. not discrimination
It is a decision made after careful consideration by the owners. Due to some ignorant parents, the business suffered a lot of damage, so after much thought, they decided to do a no-kids zone. Basically, as long as the customer doesn't cause trouble, the owner doesn't care about this at all, whether it's a foreigner, a man or a woman. All they care about is sales. In particular, in Korea, since parents do not spare money in business for children, targeting business items focused on children boasts the greatest sales power.
sure, subwayEveryone has the right to freely use public facilities such as However, in the case of private businesses such as restaurants and cafes, this is not the case at all. A place of business is clearly a space owned by the business owner, and the phrase 'the customer is king' is not an obligation to abide by, but only means the mindset of the business owner, and it is also the business owner's right to reject customers. This is called open private land, and private houses, houses, land, farmland, etc. where ordinary people usually live are privately owned private land where access is prohibited to anyone other than the person concerned, or limited access is allowed only with the owner's permission or consent or approval. In other words, open private land refers to privately owned private land where shops are established for commercial and profitable purposes and open to everyone for a fee. Therefore, some of the current private facilities, privately operated parks, and most of the shops all belong to open privately owned land. For example, general housing and private houses are strictly prohibited from entering outsiders other than residents for the purpose of privacy protection, and outside visitors must obtain permission from the owner or householder or manager to enter (rescue and firefighters, police, administrative Exceptions are civil servants, ambulances, fire trucks, police vehicles, and vehicles on administrative duty.) Stores that are open differ in that the owner opens them for the purpose of paying everyone for the purpose of making a profit.
Is it really right to see a meal or drink overflowing with choice and the position of the business owner who stakes their livelihood on an equal footing? In the case of consumers, it is enough to go to another store where children are allowed to enter, so they have the right to restrict entry if they cause material damage to the business. In the case of quite a few public facilities, everyone has the right to use them, but sometimes it happens that "anyone" can't use them because of some specific people. Conversely, if the playground built by children to play becomes a meeting place for juvenile delinquents and the children are reluctant to enter, in this case, can we see juvenile delinquents as legitimate exercisers of the 'right to use by anyone'?
In the position of B against consumers, and business owners who cannot receive legal protection against children who misbehave, they have virtually no choice. This is because business is to make a profit, not to realize values such as child equality. Is it desirable to use the light word 'convenience' to dismiss the loss of time and emotions of other guests due to some mindless parents, resulting in financial loss and mental suffering for the business owner? Rather, aren't the opponents of No Kid Zone trying to sacrifice the minority for the convenience of the majority??
Also, contrary to the logic below, if a store that has been victimized by an ex-convict implements an ex-convict zone on the grounds that ex-convicts often commit crimes again, there will be no great resistance. However, if a store that has been victimized by people implements a no-person zone on the grounds that people often commit crimes, everyone will protest. In this case, if we compare children and adults, we need to take into account the rate at which the problem occurs in the target group, and we need a realistic comparison before simply applying any logic.
In addition to the child problem, it is also common for parents to implement a no-kids zone because they have done the truth. As mentioned above, not thinking about controlling the child at all is basic, demanding excessive service beyond the money paid to the store, or begging for free child food that is not on the menu, etc. There are many black consumer parents who make unreasonable demands. If they refuse their request, they criticize the store owner's personality, accuse them of being child haters, commit a horoscope terrorism, and spread negative rumors about the store in the surrounding community. All kinds of things happen, so not only the child but also the parent with the child is on guard. It can be.
In addition, there is a loophole in the logic that a fair comparison is impossible for 'why are there no places where drunken people who are much more dangerous than children are not allowed to enter', which is the basis of discrimination theory. Places claiming to be No Kids Zone are usually restaurants or cafes that use a gentle and calm atmosphere as a sales point, so regular customers will visit the store with the expectation that it will be quiet. Therefore, if a drunkard yells at other customers, assaults other people, or damages property, it is certain that he will be put on a blacklist and will never go back to that store again. In addition, drunkards spread their truth on the Internet, and even if they complain of injustice, they only buy ridicule and do not have a great impact on the reputation of the store. On the other hand, truth parents are unnecessarily strong in unity, and if one truth parent accuses the store owner of being a child hater, there are many cases in which other truth parents also agree and raise the business without checking the facts. are parents accompanied by Above all, drunken people are usually people who like alcohol and nightlife, so there is no reason to go to the No Kids Zone cafe.
In fact, Noah Jae-jon exists as described later. Specifically, it says that entry is prohibited for those over the age of 49.
sure, subwayEveryone has the right to freely use public facilities such as However, in the case of private businesses such as restaurants and cafes, this is not the case at all. A place of business is clearly a space owned by the business owner, and the phrase 'the customer is king' is not an obligation to abide by, but only means the mindset of the business owner, and it is also the business owner's right to reject customers. This is called open private land, and private houses, houses, land, farmland, etc. where ordinary people usually live are privately owned private land where access is prohibited to anyone other than the person concerned, or limited access is allowed only with the owner's permission or consent or approval. In other words, open private land refers to privately owned private land where shops are established for commercial and profitable purposes and open to everyone for a fee. Therefore, some of the current private facilities, privately operated parks, and most of the shops all belong to open privately owned land. For example, general housing and private houses are strictly prohibited from entering outsiders other than residents for the purpose of privacy protection, and outside visitors must obtain permission from the owner or householder or manager to enter (rescue and firefighters, police, administrative Exceptions are civil servants, ambulances, fire trucks, police vehicles, and vehicles on administrative duty.) Stores that are open differ in that the owner opens them for the purpose of paying everyone for the purpose of making a profit.
Is it really right to see a meal or drink overflowing with choice and the position of the business owner who stakes their livelihood on an equal footing? In the case of consumers, it is enough to go to another store where children are allowed to enter, so they have the right to restrict entry if they cause material damage to the business. In the case of quite a few public facilities, everyone has the right to use them, but sometimes it happens that "anyone" can't use them because of some specific people. Conversely, if the playground built by children to play becomes a meeting place for juvenile delinquents and the children are reluctant to enter, in this case, can we see juvenile delinquents as legitimate exercisers of the 'right to use by anyone'?
In the position of B against consumers, and business owners who cannot receive legal protection against children who misbehave, they have virtually no choice. This is because business is to make a profit, not to realize values such as child equality. Is it desirable to use the light word 'convenience' to dismiss the loss of time and emotions of other guests due to some mindless parents, resulting in financial loss and mental suffering for the business owner? Rather, aren't the opponents of No Kid Zone trying to sacrifice the minority for the convenience of the majority??
Also, contrary to the logic below, if a store that has been victimized by an ex-convict implements an ex-convict zone on the grounds that ex-convicts often commit crimes again, there will be no great resistance. However, if a store that has been victimized by people implements a no-person zone on the grounds that people often commit crimes, everyone will protest. In this case, if we compare children and adults, we need to take into account the rate at which the problem occurs in the target group, and we need a realistic comparison before simply applying any logic.
In addition to the child problem, it is also common for parents to implement a no-kids zone because they have done the truth. As mentioned above, not thinking about controlling the child at all is basic, demanding excessive service beyond the money paid to the store, or begging for free child food that is not on the menu, etc. There are many black consumer parents who make unreasonable demands. If they refuse their request, they criticize the store owner's personality, accuse them of being child haters, commit a horoscope terrorism, and spread negative rumors about the store in the surrounding community. All kinds of things happen, so not only the child but also the parent with the child is on guard. It can be.
In addition, there is a loophole in the logic that a fair comparison is impossible for 'why are there no places where drunken people who are much more dangerous than children are not allowed to enter', which is the basis of discrimination theory. Places claiming to be No Kids Zone are usually restaurants or cafes that use a gentle and calm atmosphere as a sales point, so regular customers will visit the store with the expectation that it will be quiet. Therefore, if a drunkard yells at other customers, assaults other people, or damages property, it is certain that he will be put on a blacklist and will never go back to that store again. In addition, drunkards spread their truth on the Internet, and even if they complain of injustice, they only buy ridicule and do not have a great impact on the reputation of the store. On the other hand, truth parents are unnecessarily strong in unity, and if one truth parent accuses the store owner of being a child hater, there are many cases in which other truth parents also agree and raise the business without checking the facts. are parents accompanied by Above all, drunken people are usually people who like alcohol and nightlife, so there is no reason to go to the No Kids Zone cafe.
In fact, Noah Jae-jon exists as described later. Specifically, it says that entry is prohibited for those over the age of 49.
4.3.2. discrimination
As an example proving this part, there is a 'drinker'. In general restaurants, alcoholic beverages are provided, and especially in the case of cafes with a lot of no-kids zones, it is a convenience facility that is often used by office workers who have been running the 2nd and 3rd rounds to break up and go home after drinking a cup of coffee.
However, intoxicants are severely restricted by the law.
However, intoxicants are severely restricted by the law.
Road Traffic Act Article 44 (Prohibition of driving while intoxicated
) Article 45, Article 47, Article 93 (1) 1 through 4, and Article 148-2) shall not drive streetcars or bicycles.
(abbreviation)In addition, the Railroad Safety Act, the Maritime Safety Act, the Aviation Safety Act, and the Water Leisure Safety Act restrict the acts of drunkards, but they are omitted. Details are described in the drunk driving document.
[Longer] Refusal to ride taxis that do not pick up drunk customers? ( JoongAng Ilbo article source.)
(Strategy)
However, the Seoul Metropolitan Government's official blog specifically mentions examples of illegal refusal to board. It can be a standard of response to judge whether it is an illegal act of refusal to ride or not. A typical example is as follows.
〈Illegal act of refusing to board a ride〉
Common sense tells us drunkenness is dangerous. It is rather cute that a drunk person urinates on the street or makes a loud noise, and in the media, 'drinking and murder', 'a drunk driver who ran away after hitting a police officer during a drinking crackdown to avoid getting caught under the influence of alcohol', 'rape a girl while drunk' Did you feel drunk?' It is never difficult to find such extreme and provocative headlines. The damage to the business is so great that service workers with experience have at least one saga related to drunkards.
Even though it has reached this point, there is a No Kid Zone, but no No Eum Ju Zone. At least there are many 'No Kids Zones', but there are almost no 'No Eum Ju Zones'. This is despite the fact that drunken people are much more dangerous than children according to social norms. Why do 'No Father Zone' and 'Noeum Jujon' not cast a shadow unlike 'No Kids Zone'? This is explained by the fact that the middle-aged, unlike children, have much greater economic power and social influence, so the disadvantage caused by the designation of 'Noah's presence' is very large. In the end, it can be concluded that the No Kids Zone is also a social discrimination against children, who are socially weak. layer.)
The claim that it is not discrimination simply because the damage suffered by business owners when the No Kids Zone is not implemented is more severe than the customer who was kicked out of the store just because they have children is to judge whether it is discrimination by simply comparing the degree of damage. It's just like that, and it's not logical at all. It is not something to claim, "Because my damage is greater, even if you suffer loss because of me, it is not discrimination." Moreover, the side that said it was not discrimination said that the grievances experienced when the No Kids Zone was not created were evidence that it could not be discrimination, and cases such as “even if I say it a hundred times a thousand times, the truth parents don’t listen”, “the court ignores it”, and “retaliates at Mom’s Café ” The parties involved in these are all mother cafes, the courts, and the truthful parents themselves, who have nothing to do with other innocent children and their guardians who are presented as victims on the side of discrimination.
The side of discrimination is not arguing that 'no matter how much harm they cause, it is discrimination against them that prevents them from entering', but simply being tied up with them and treated the same just because they are children or accompanied by children. It refers to the inconvenience and discrimination experienced by innocent children and their guardians who are victims of violence.
The above argument in favor only proves the sorrow and damage of the business owners suffered by the truthful customers, and is talking about a story that is completely out of the question on the subject of whether it is another discrimination that the business owners pack up other customers and treat them the same as their hands.. Just as business owners can express their discomfort about being victimized by abuse of power, even those who have not committed abuse of power but are accused of being potential perpetrators of abuse of power have the right to say so if they feel that they have been discriminated against. If you claim that this is not discrimination by hearing that the degree of damage is more severe, 'the victim of sexual assault has suffered great damage both mentally and physically, and the degree of damage is more severe than that of a person who is accused of being a potential sex offender. There is an opinion that
parents with children cannot accept the disadvantage of not being able to use the service just because they are raising a child. The main point is that not being able to enter the business itself is discrimination. Also, in that the target of exclusion in the No Kids Zone is 'children', the No Kids Zone can be seen as an act of violating the human rights of children
. The logic of sacrificing a minority can also be seen as discrimination against human rights in the sense that it promotes discrimination against people with disabilities, etc. It is argued that this is the same as racism in the past when black people were not allowed to enter white stores. In fact, some people call it 'kidsism' after 'racism' .
In addition, it can be said that it is right to sanction all because the damage is caused by a minority, which means 'there are sex offenders among men, so all men deserve to be treated as potential sex offenders', or ' there are innocent sex offenders among women, so all This is in line with the argument that women deserve to be treated as potential innocent criminals. It is not right to try to solve the problem in a way that blocks the access of the entire group (including the innocent majority) even if the damage is caused by a minority. According to their logic, it is more realistic to blacklist, no matter how cumbersome and difficult to implement.
In fact, when I asked the children about the No Kids Zone on Children's Day at the MBC News Desk, they said, "I'm angry." "It's unfair", "That's bad", "It seems that only adults think about it", "Adults chat and talk together, but it seems a bit discriminatory to not allow only children to enter." news
Even though it has reached this point, there is a No Kid Zone, but no No Eum Ju Zone. At least there are many 'No Kids Zones', but there are almost no 'No Eum Ju Zones'. This is despite the fact that drunken people are much more dangerous than children according to social norms. Why do 'No Father Zone' and 'Noeum Jujon' not cast a shadow unlike 'No Kids Zone'? This is explained by the fact that the middle-aged, unlike children, have much greater economic power and social influence, so the disadvantage caused by the designation of 'Noah's presence' is very large. In the end, it can be concluded that the No Kids Zone is also a social discrimination against children, who are socially weak. layer.)
The claim that it is not discrimination simply because the damage suffered by business owners when the No Kids Zone is not implemented is more severe than the customer who was kicked out of the store just because they have children is to judge whether it is discrimination by simply comparing the degree of damage. It's just like that, and it's not logical at all. It is not something to claim, "Because my damage is greater, even if you suffer loss because of me, it is not discrimination." Moreover, the side that said it was not discrimination said that the grievances experienced when the No Kids Zone was not created were evidence that it could not be discrimination, and cases such as “even if I say it a hundred times a thousand times, the truth parents don’t listen”, “the court ignores it”, and “retaliates at Mom’s Café ” The parties involved in these are all mother cafes, the courts, and the truthful parents themselves, who have nothing to do with other innocent children and their guardians who are presented as victims on the side of discrimination.
The side of discrimination is not arguing that 'no matter how much harm they cause, it is discrimination against them that prevents them from entering', but simply being tied up with them and treated the same just because they are children or accompanied by children. It refers to the inconvenience and discrimination experienced by innocent children and their guardians who are victims of violence.
The above argument in favor only proves the sorrow and damage of the business owners suffered by the truthful customers, and is talking about a story that is completely out of the question on the subject of whether it is another discrimination that the business owners pack up other customers and treat them the same as their hands.. Just as business owners can express their discomfort about being victimized by abuse of power, even those who have not committed abuse of power but are accused of being potential perpetrators of abuse of power have the right to say so if they feel that they have been discriminated against. If you claim that this is not discrimination by hearing that the degree of damage is more severe, 'the victim of sexual assault has suffered great damage both mentally and physically, and the degree of damage is more severe than that of a person who is accused of being a potential sex offender. There is an opinion that
parents with children cannot accept the disadvantage of not being able to use the service just because they are raising a child. The main point is that not being able to enter the business itself is discrimination. Also, in that the target of exclusion in the No Kids Zone is 'children', the No Kids Zone can be seen as an act of violating the human rights of children
. The logic of sacrificing a minority can also be seen as discrimination against human rights in the sense that it promotes discrimination against people with disabilities, etc. It is argued that this is the same as racism in the past when black people were not allowed to enter white stores. In fact, some people call it 'kidsism' after 'racism' .
In addition, it can be said that it is right to sanction all because the damage is caused by a minority, which means 'there are sex offenders among men, so all men deserve to be treated as potential sex offenders', or ' there are innocent sex offenders among women, so all This is in line with the argument that women deserve to be treated as potential innocent criminals. It is not right to try to solve the problem in a way that blocks the access of the entire group (including the innocent majority) even if the damage is caused by a minority. According to their logic, it is more realistic to blacklist, no matter how cumbersome and difficult to implement.
In fact, when I asked the children about the No Kids Zone on Children's Day at the MBC News Desk, they said, "I'm angry." "It's unfair", "That's bad", "It seems that only adults think about it", "Adults chat and talk together, but it seems a bit discriminatory to not allow only children to enter." news
4.3.3. Opinion of the National Human Rights Commission
On November 24, 2017, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea determined that 'No Kids Zone' was a discriminatory act. Although it is possible to specify problematic behavior and expel guests who violate it, it was determined that it was impossible to deny entry to all subjects. However, the NHRCK's judgment is a 'recommendation', not a 'compulsion', so it has no compulsory force in itself.
Most of the parents who opposed the No Kids Zone showed a welcome stance. He would also do that, because he saw that not being able to come because he was a child was discrimination against children and against parents who had such children.
On the other hand, the supporters of No Kids Zone expressed the opinion, 'I don't know how people who work hard at the store make such recommendations without hearing their grievances.' For example, the Human Rights Commission said, “Even if the restaurant has difficulties in business, in order to solve it, guardians with children are given precautions to prevent safety accidents and specific behaviors that interfere with business, while restricting use corresponding to actual violations and requesting exit. In response to the statement that "you can use other methods, such as notifying in advance that it is possible," parents who have been asked to leave can write and post criticisms about food establishments in delivery applications, restaurant rating comments, or mom cafes. Some claim that they can't do this or that because they think badly about the store and intentionally don't use it, so they can lose money.
Most of the parents who opposed the No Kids Zone showed a welcome stance. He would also do that, because he saw that not being able to come because he was a child was discrimination against children and against parents who had such children.
On the other hand, the supporters of No Kids Zone expressed the opinion, 'I don't know how people who work hard at the store make such recommendations without hearing their grievances.' For example, the Human Rights Commission said, “Even if the restaurant has difficulties in business, in order to solve it, guardians with children are given precautions to prevent safety accidents and specific behaviors that interfere with business, while restricting use corresponding to actual violations and requesting exit. In response to the statement that "you can use other methods, such as notifying in advance that it is possible," parents who have been asked to leave can write and post criticisms about food establishments in delivery applications, restaurant rating comments, or mom cafes. Some claim that they can't do this or that because they think badly about the store and intentionally don't use it, so they can lose money.
4.4. Are there any legal means other than No Kids Zone?
If a child damages property in the store, damages the body of the owner or employee, or damages the body or property of other customers, it is possible to claim civil damages against the child's guardian. However, this means that it is possible to claim it legally, and whether it is possible to claim it in reality is a separate issue.
First of all, if the property of the store is damaged or the owner or employee is injured, the store side has to file a lawsuit against the customer. The benefits are not great. Even if you win, there is no guarantee that you will actually be able to receive all of the damages . ) You can understand it just by looking at the controversy of A and B, and let's think about why the Sonnom and Emotional Labor documents were created. However, if a child causes damage to another guest's body or property, it is realistically possible for other guests to file a lawsuit against the child's guardian. In fact, there are quite a few cases where other guests file lawsuits against the guardians of children.
Conversely, when ordering hot food, even though the guardian of the child has the responsibility to protect the child from accidents that will occur, if the child suffers physical damage such as burns, it is not like a ridiculous guardian who demands compensation from the owner. Sometimes there are guardians. And in fact, there is even a precedent that asks the business owner to compensate for the damage. As such, it is only natural that business owners do not want to accept customers who may cause problems in various ways, not just the No Kids Zone. In addition to compensation for damages, additional damages may occur during the course of litigation. However, in the case of an adult, it is difficult to find a case in which a lawsuit was filed for being burned while eating hot food.
First of all, if the property of the store is damaged or the owner or employee is injured, the store side has to file a lawsuit against the customer. The benefits are not great. Even if you win, there is no guarantee that you will actually be able to receive all of the damages . ) You can understand it just by looking at the controversy of A and B, and let's think about why the Sonnom and Emotional Labor documents were created. However, if a child causes damage to another guest's body or property, it is realistically possible for other guests to file a lawsuit against the child's guardian. In fact, there are quite a few cases where other guests file lawsuits against the guardians of children.
Conversely, when ordering hot food, even though the guardian of the child has the responsibility to protect the child from accidents that will occur, if the child suffers physical damage such as burns, it is not like a ridiculous guardian who demands compensation from the owner. Sometimes there are guardians. And in fact, there is even a precedent that asks the business owner to compensate for the damage. As such, it is only natural that business owners do not want to accept customers who may cause problems in various ways, not just the No Kids Zone. In addition to compensation for damages, additional damages may occur during the course of litigation. However, in the case of an adult, it is difficult to find a case in which a lawsuit was filed for being burned while eating hot food.
4.5. Doesn't it exacerbate the low birth rate ?
- It has nothing to do with low fertility (the claim is an objection in 'deepening low fertility', but it is close to an argument in favor in the context of the No Kids Zone, so the order is inverted.) Korea's avoidance of childbirth is low wage, low employment rate, murderous
working hours, ( Korea's working hours are second in the OECD. ) The primary problems are the lack of childcare environment and the wrong education system. When the number of customers with children increases due to the rising birth rate, the business owner has no choice but to eliminate the no-kids zone for the sake of income.
- It can be the cause of the low birth rate. Generations who should get married or raise children look at this controversy and say, 'If I get married and raise
children , I will live with such discrimination, right? There is also a prospect that it can make people decide, 'Let's not get married or have children at all, if we're going to live through that kind of thing!' It is no exaggeration to say that if this happens, it will be a new direct hit to Korean society, which has entered an aging society. In particular, rural local governments have virtually entered a declining population and an aging society, and there are many places that have risen to the standard of population extinction risk, so they have to be more alert and consider the position of business owners who pay local taxes. Due to the already low birth rate problem, the government as well as domestic local governments can be quite embarrassed, so they can be deeply troubled. In addition, children's parents and business owners can vote equally in elections, so considering the vote, they are in a position to appease both, so there is no choice but to worry and worry. "Don't run!" Noise between floors in the house, no kids zone outside... Hae-Young
Woo, a sociologist at Portland State University, pointed out that no-kids zones reinforce the stereotype that women should take care of children at home, making childrearing difficult, which discourages people from having children. She also criticized the No Kids Zone for creating a society where parents and children who are not considered 'normal people' have a hard time living like minorities or people with disabilities.
- It can cause generational conflict.
Until the eco-boom generation, there was no no-kids zone. From the perspective of the Alpha generation, the eco-boom can be seen as a generation that sucks. (Alpha generation has a small population, so there is no memory of stationery )
4.6. Responsibilities of Parents vs. Responsibilities of Owners
4.6.1. parental position
Considering that parents are designated as the guardians of children under the legal principle and that the Child and Youth Protection Act imposes the responsibility for illegal acts or compensation committed by minors on the guardians, most problems in these accidents stem from negligent management of parents. (However, it is true that the owner of the business is responsible for accidents caused by the owner leaving dangerous materials without a minimum safety device.) From the point of view of others, it seems that they will not recognize that they cause harm to others for their own interests.
Against this point, the opposite side of No Kids Zone protests, "You guys try to have a child, it's the same," but from the point of view of other customers who pay the same fee and receive the service, we simply give birth to a child, so you guys have to bear the damage. It has no choice but to be recognized as pride. It should be seen that parents have already neglected their responsibility in passing the responsibility for accidents to others while ignoring the minimum responsibility for management. In other words, it is no different from the protests of "You look old, you are the same," while causing all kinds of trouble.
As a result, the opposition to the No-Kids Zone, to be precise, is very cold-hearted towards the aforementioned mindset of 'forcing or urging others to suffer harm while ignoring their responsibility as parents by putting up a child'. As described in the previous 'opposition' paragraph, there are not a few voices concerned about the expansion of the No Kids Zone, based on the fact that the No Kids Zone can become an excuse to discriminate against all children and parents by defining them as having no concept. The supporters of the No Kids Zone consider even the opposition to the No Kids Zone based on these valid grounds as a ' shield of unconceived parents ' and say, "Then, where I pay my money, do I really want to see the kids running amok and the parents doing the truth?" see more often
Above all, the biggest loophole in that claim is that there are parents who are good at cracking down on their children even when accompanied by children. In other words, it clearly shows that the claim that 'you can't do that if you have a child' is far-fetched.
Of course, since there are individual differences between children and parents, there may be parents who are enthusiastic about themselves but have difficulty controlling their children (typically ADHD).A case like this can be cited. In this case, most parents do not let their children go outside, but being locked up without being able to eat out even once because of ADHD is also cruel. Parents who feel sorry for such children happen to take their children out to eat, and a war breaks out.) Most people show that even if the child is a nuisance, the parents are working hard to restrain the child's behavior and nuisance. If you give it to them, they often go over it generously, saying, "Raising a child is hard, isn't it?" People don't care whether their children are running around or overturning other people's grills, and they curse at parents who are just playing quietly..
Dogs or Cats for Reckless Kids in 'No Kids Zone'?
The linked article also raises concerns about the No Kids Zone by citing a similar argument to the opposite position paragraph above, but the point of view on the cause of the rise of the No Kids Zone is somewhat wrong. As mentioned earlier, in the first place, the No Kids Zone was not caused by children themselves, but rather by unconventional parents who neglected children who behaved badly. It's just highlighting it and making it a problem. Because of this, many of the comments on the article are cold. (Among them, there are comments that blatantly criticize, saying, 'What nonsense, it's not that No Kids Zone came out for nothing', and 'Did you write the article because the parents of the children stabbed you in the side? There are even openly sarcastic comments like, ‘Look at it. It is a problem even after setting up the article No Kids Zone
in June 2016.
There are cases in which boycott campaigns are launched at Internet cafes, posts degrading the appearance of employees, and even verbal abuse over the phone. In retaliation for setting up a no-kids zone, there are even cases of retaliation (?) in the so-called no-show method, in which reservations are made for 10 people and then canceled. This is a case that clearly shows that the problem of the no-kids zone is basically caused by 'adults' rather than 'kids'.
According to the radio interview (anonymously interviewing the owner of No Kids Zone and the consumer (mother of a 3-year-old child) who opposes No Kids Zone) in the link above, the owner of the restaurant has been running No Kids Zone for 2 years (the diapers on the table are It's basic, and after going through incidents such as a child peeing in a cup while eating with others, even seeing a baby stroller entering the restaurant leads to anxiety, and it is said that it is operated as a no-kids zone restaurant.) is also a no-kids zone, but It has a proviso that 'children who can sit down and eat quietly can come in', and according to this, if the guest accompanied by the child reassures that he will control the child well, the meal will be possible. And, she says, she never encountered a problem in that case. This content proves that if parents have the will to take responsibility, they can control their children according to dining etiquette.
There are many shops that do not announce or display in advance, but only after receiving all orders, informing that it is a no-kids zone and inducing packaging. #1 #2
Against this point, the opposite side of No Kids Zone protests, "You guys try to have a child, it's the same," but from the point of view of other customers who pay the same fee and receive the service, we simply give birth to a child, so you guys have to bear the damage. It has no choice but to be recognized as pride. It should be seen that parents have already neglected their responsibility in passing the responsibility for accidents to others while ignoring the minimum responsibility for management. In other words, it is no different from the protests of "You look old, you are the same," while causing all kinds of trouble.
As a result, the opposition to the No-Kids Zone, to be precise, is very cold-hearted towards the aforementioned mindset of 'forcing or urging others to suffer harm while ignoring their responsibility as parents by putting up a child'. As described in the previous 'opposition' paragraph, there are not a few voices concerned about the expansion of the No Kids Zone, based on the fact that the No Kids Zone can become an excuse to discriminate against all children and parents by defining them as having no concept. The supporters of the No Kids Zone consider even the opposition to the No Kids Zone based on these valid grounds as a ' shield of unconceived parents ' and say, "Then, where I pay my money, do I really want to see the kids running amok and the parents doing the truth?" see more often
Above all, the biggest loophole in that claim is that there are parents who are good at cracking down on their children even when accompanied by children. In other words, it clearly shows that the claim that 'you can't do that if you have a child' is far-fetched.
Of course, since there are individual differences between children and parents, there may be parents who are enthusiastic about themselves but have difficulty controlling their children (typically ADHD).A case like this can be cited. In this case, most parents do not let their children go outside, but being locked up without being able to eat out even once because of ADHD is also cruel. Parents who feel sorry for such children happen to take their children out to eat, and a war breaks out.) Most people show that even if the child is a nuisance, the parents are working hard to restrain the child's behavior and nuisance. If you give it to them, they often go over it generously, saying, "Raising a child is hard, isn't it?" People don't care whether their children are running around or overturning other people's grills, and they curse at parents who are just playing quietly..
Dogs or Cats for Reckless Kids in 'No Kids Zone'?
The linked article also raises concerns about the No Kids Zone by citing a similar argument to the opposite position paragraph above, but the point of view on the cause of the rise of the No Kids Zone is somewhat wrong. As mentioned earlier, in the first place, the No Kids Zone was not caused by children themselves, but rather by unconventional parents who neglected children who behaved badly. It's just highlighting it and making it a problem. Because of this, many of the comments on the article are cold. (Among them, there are comments that blatantly criticize, saying, 'What nonsense, it's not that No Kids Zone came out for nothing', and 'Did you write the article because the parents of the children stabbed you in the side? There are even openly sarcastic comments like, ‘Look at it. It is a problem even after setting up the article No Kids Zone
in June 2016.
There are cases in which boycott campaigns are launched at Internet cafes, posts degrading the appearance of employees, and even verbal abuse over the phone. In retaliation for setting up a no-kids zone, there are even cases of retaliation (?) in the so-called no-show method, in which reservations are made for 10 people and then canceled. This is a case that clearly shows that the problem of the no-kids zone is basically caused by 'adults' rather than 'kids'.
According to the radio interview (anonymously interviewing the owner of No Kids Zone and the consumer (mother of a 3-year-old child) who opposes No Kids Zone) in the link above, the owner of the restaurant has been running No Kids Zone for 2 years (the diapers on the table are It's basic, and after going through incidents such as a child peeing in a cup while eating with others, even seeing a baby stroller entering the restaurant leads to anxiety, and it is said that it is operated as a no-kids zone restaurant.) is also a no-kids zone, but It has a proviso that 'children who can sit down and eat quietly can come in', and according to this, if the guest accompanied by the child reassures that he will control the child well, the meal will be possible. And, she says, she never encountered a problem in that case. This content proves that if parents have the will to take responsibility, they can control their children according to dining etiquette.
There are many shops that do not announce or display in advance, but only after receiving all orders, informing that it is a no-kids zone and inducing packaging. #1 #2
4.6.2. position of the store
In terms of economy, even though it is difficult and difficult, it can be said that there are enough reasons to introduce No Kids Zone. According to the story of a Ruliweb user who revived a part-time pork cutlet restaurant that was almost ruined, housewives stayed too long without ordering as many food as the number of people, which became the main cause of the decrease in turnover and labor costs. With the introduction of the Kids Zone, many male office workers, students, and couples came instead, so it turned into a surplus, and among them, male office workers who ate quickly and left quickly were the best . There is a story that the request was so excessive that even regular customers stopped walking, so there was a story that they had no choice but to introduce it, and since customers with children who have relatively long meal times do not come, the turnover rate increases, so even if you do a No Kids Zone for a year, you lose money. There is also a story that the benefits were greater than. In addition to this, stores decorated with toys and figures are not subject to damage or theft, and some parents unlock the cabinet at the request of their children and take out expensive items at will.(No matter how much the child requests, the act of unlocking an expensive cabinet and handing it over to a child without the permission of the owner is close to theft. In addition, parents who damage it and suffer damage There are many experiences that say that if the side pays for it properly, you don't have to know, but the child did it, but there are many cases where the child appeals to the child as a shield)..
Also, from the store's point of view, it is argued that the store itself can have the right or event to designate a no-kids zone arbitrarily, citing that it is a private property. In fact, it is natural for the legal occupants to exercise their rights in private land. It is a common occurrence in other business establishments in reality that the owner of the restaurant selects and accepts customers according to his taste. In entertainment establishments such as nightclubs and clubs, there are frequent cases in which visitors are judged by appearance, age, clothing, etc. for water quality control, and admission is denied if they do not meet the standard (even if the clothing is too old, too old, too Admission is prohibited for the reason that it is ugly, but it is discriminatory to the level of a no - kids zone. In other words, the position that the establishment of the no-kids zone itself is the right of the owner of private land.
Because of this, some store owners would be happy if we went to your house or private property, drank, peed, and ran away. Some say that we do the same, just as you won't let us do that. In other words, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Some store owners say that they don't like the fact that they come to someone else's private property and leave their children unattended as if they were at their own . Choo Seong-hun, who has a strong sense of Japanese not to cause harm to others, shows a very strict admonishment when Chu Sa-rang damages the store, while Lee Hwi-jae admonishes children for pulling out tissues because they are not enough to sprinkle water on them. Since
the store is private property and a legally licensed business site, administrative agencies have also violated related laws (illegal acts)If is not the case, you cannot intervene recklessly, and if you intervene incorrectly, it will result in an illegal administrative disposition. This is most evident in the principle of a warrant. The investigative agency cannot break into the suspect's property (residence, business place, etc.) or confiscate the property without a warrant, no matter how likely the suspect is to be a criminal . Arrests and investigations conducted without warrants and reasonable grounds (such as on-the-spot arrest of criminals in action) are illegal in themselves, and even if convincing evidence proving that the suspect is a criminal is secured in the process, the Criminal Procedure Act According to, all the evidence is neutralized, and as a result, the suspect is acquitted due to insufficient evidence. The protection of private land is just as strong. This is why the government of the Republic of Korea until 2021 takes a position of non-intervention in the No Kid Zone.
Not only the Republic of Korea, but all democratic countries and governments on the globe have one thing in common: they adhere to the principle of not directly intervening in privately owned private lands unless tax evasion or unauthorized activities occur.
Also, from the store's point of view, it is argued that the store itself can have the right or event to designate a no-kids zone arbitrarily, citing that it is a private property. In fact, it is natural for the legal occupants to exercise their rights in private land. It is a common occurrence in other business establishments in reality that the owner of the restaurant selects and accepts customers according to his taste. In entertainment establishments such as nightclubs and clubs, there are frequent cases in which visitors are judged by appearance, age, clothing, etc. for water quality control, and admission is denied if they do not meet the standard (even if the clothing is too old, too old, too Admission is prohibited for the reason that it is ugly, but it is discriminatory to the level of a no - kids zone. In other words, the position that the establishment of the no-kids zone itself is the right of the owner of private land.
Because of this, some store owners would be happy if we went to your house or private property, drank, peed, and ran away. Some say that we do the same, just as you won't let us do that. In other words, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Some store owners say that they don't like the fact that they come to someone else's private property and leave their children unattended as if they were at their own . Choo Seong-hun, who has a strong sense of Japanese not to cause harm to others, shows a very strict admonishment when Chu Sa-rang damages the store, while Lee Hwi-jae admonishes children for pulling out tissues because they are not enough to sprinkle water on them. Since
the store is private property and a legally licensed business site, administrative agencies have also violated related laws (illegal acts)If is not the case, you cannot intervene recklessly, and if you intervene incorrectly, it will result in an illegal administrative disposition. This is most evident in the principle of a warrant. The investigative agency cannot break into the suspect's property (residence, business place, etc.) or confiscate the property without a warrant, no matter how likely the suspect is to be a criminal . Arrests and investigations conducted without warrants and reasonable grounds (such as on-the-spot arrest of criminals in action) are illegal in themselves, and even if convincing evidence proving that the suspect is a criminal is secured in the process, the Criminal Procedure Act According to, all the evidence is neutralized, and as a result, the suspect is acquitted due to insufficient evidence. The protection of private land is just as strong. This is why the government of the Republic of Korea until 2021 takes a position of non-intervention in the No Kid Zone.
Not only the Republic of Korea, but all democratic countries and governments on the globe have one thing in common: they adhere to the principle of not directly intervening in privately owned private lands unless tax evasion or unauthorized activities occur.
No-Kids Zone stores belong to private businesses operated by private companies, not public facilities, and are conducted at the discretion of the business owners, so it may be difficult to enforce administrative enforcement or sanctions. In addition, although negative acts such as unauthorized acts are exceptions, we inform you that whether or not to implement a no-kids zone in a store that has legally received a business license report is the exclusive right of the store, so administrative procedures are not possible.- △△ District Office
Unlike public facilities (museums, exhibition halls, libraries, etc.) operated by each city, county, or district office, shops run by individuals belong to privately owned land run by individuals and civilians, so administrative enforcement is absolutely impossible, and unauthorized sales and tax evasion However, it is difficult to enforce compulsory enforcement and punishment for private property that is legally reported and operated under public authority unless it is an obvious negative act such as intentionally committing a crime by the owner of the store. Please inquire separately with the owner of the store regarding this matter as it is not even subject to investigation.- ○○ Police Station
Let's say that those who oppose me pissed on their private property or in front of their house, graffitied, and ran away. Do you feel good? It is no different from that when our store decides on a no-kids zone. Those people are probably the ones who would put a no-parking sign in front of their house or on private property, but why are you arguing about other people's shops? It is not the only invasion of privacy. Even if you are a customer, talking too much about our store is an invasion of privacy. Of course, it's not that their children don't know what's important, but I don't know if they're talking too much about their in-laws. They said they were going to say no parking in front of their house anyway. I don't know if that outsider knows that we're going in too. Even if we go in and park in front of that person's house at will, they're going to zone out as outsiders anyway.
5. Public opinion
According to a poll conducted by Hankook Research from November 12 to 15, 2021, 71% of the respondents said that the No Kids Zone could be allowed, far ahead of the response that it could not be allowed (17%) . 80% answered that it is acceptable to operate a partial No Kids Zone, not the entire business. Public opinion in favor of No Kids Zone prevailed. While 74% agreed with the statement that No Kids Zone is considerate of other guests, only 29% agreed with the statement that it discriminates against children. Survey results However, since the survey was conducted by adults in their 20s and older, not children, who are the target of the No Kids Zone, there are opinions that the positives are much higher than the negatives. Of course, in the survey, parents with children were also more positive.)
6. Legislation
On May 3, 2023, Jeju Provincial Assembly member Song Chang-kwon of the Democratic Party announced the legislation of the "No-Kids Zone Designation Prohibition Ordinance" that cannot designate a No-Kids Zone in Jeju-do. #
On May 4, Representative Yong Hae-in of the Basic Income Party held a press conference holding her 23-month-old son, saying that she would push for a "Children's Fast Track System" that would eliminate the No Kids Zone and allow children to enter first. #
There are mixed responses from various communities, with opinions in favor of this legislative attempt that the No Kids Zone is not suitable in an era of low birth rates, and opinions that the No Kids Zone is at the discretion of business operators and is necessary.
On May 4, Representative Yong Hae-in of the Basic Income Party held a press conference holding her 23-month-old son, saying that she would push for a "Children's Fast Track System" that would eliminate the No Kids Zone and allow children to enter first. #
There are mixed responses from various communities, with opinions in favor of this legislative attempt that the No Kids Zone is not suitable in an era of low birth rates, and opinions that the No Kids Zone is at the discretion of business operators and is necessary.
7. Variation
7.1. no youth zone
Now, following the No Kids Zone, there is also a No Youth Zone targeting middle and high school students aged 12 and older. Since most of them are students, it is also called the No School Zone. Some say it's because it's an adult store over the age of 19, but it's actually not an adult store, but due to the poor attitude of some teenagers and assaults on employees, etc., some stores have a no-youth zone that prohibits youth under the age of 19 from entering. It is.
Depending on the personality, middle and high school students have a rough personality and reckless behavior due to puberty, etc. As there were even cases of assaulting the store owner for not selling alcohol or causing a nuisance to some stores, some stores eventually created a no-youth zone, saying that they only accept adults over the age of 19 at their discretion. Just look at the nuisance behaviors of some youth cosplayers in Comic World,
a representative comics event. If Iljin teenagers enter the delinquent youth here , there is no need for explanation.
Rather, some say that young babies are better. At least, children do not beat people, and even if they do, they do not get sick because they are weak, and the guardians who came with them immediately stop them as soon as they witness them, so they seem better than middle school students.
In addition, unlike parents of young children, parents of middle and high school students are mostly middle-aged and elderly, so even if that happens, unlike parents of young children, some may not be able to communicate or may be territorial in some cases. Also, there are some parents who leave their children alone, saying that now that they are all grown up, it is nothing for me to care about. Children before puberty or before middle school students often accompany their parents, so their parents restrain or discourage them. In many cases, due to the influence of puberty and growing pains, in some cases, the personality becomes violent and rebellious, so there are cases in which peers, children, as well as adults, fight or assault.
In 2017, a group assault case of middle school girls in BusanAs a result of a series of incidents in which middle school girls in some parts of the country brutally assaulted their peers as a group, emerging as a social controversy, the fear of adversely affecting business owners who have the false perception that all teenagers are like that has increased. Although it is said that they assaulted their peers, there is a possibility that they will take such measures for reasons such as mental anxiety and personal safety of guests, as some teenagers have not hesitated to confront, rebel against, or even assault adults.
I'm sorry to the students, but some of the other students assaulted, quarreled with, pointed at, and abused the staff, and the grievances and complaints of the staff were not insignificant, and it interfered with their work, so we had no choice but to decide that way.- From 4 minutes and 15 seconds to the cafe owner who responded to the phone interview at MBC News Desk Rodman
7.2. no study zone
There was also a No Study Zone targeting the Kagong people. This is because the number of people who order the cheapest Americano and sit around all day using Wi-Fi has increased, and it has gained notoriety for rudeness, such as forcing other cafe users to be as quiet as a reading room. Depending on the store, there are cases where outlets and Wi-Fi are not installed. ( Starbucks Noryangjin branch also implemented suppression policies such as reducing outlets in the early days, but was eventually withdrawn.) Recently, stools (chairs without backrests) were placed instead of chairs, and instead of desks, A lot of interior cafes with low tables have increased, and this is also a way to prevent people studying with books or laptops spread out in cafes. It is only from the student's point of view that you can live
frugally, but it is good to have many customers, and even if you have one customer, that's it. From the point of view of the store owner
, who likes to order as many menu items as possible, it is not desirable because it lowers the customer turnover rate in the store.
7.3. singing song
This area first appeared in the Hongdae Street commercial district in 2018. I wrote the title above as Song Per Zone, but it is usually called No Hip Jjul Zone. As complaints from regular customers piled up because he spat in the store or sang loudly, he even appeared in the Nohipjjul Zone.
7.4. Noah Jae-zone, No-Senior Zone
It appeared in Gwanak-gu , Seoul in 2019. It is run by the owner, a woman in her 50s, and a notice was attached to it because it was difficult to respond to the sexual harassment of middle-aged male customers. As soon as I entered the store, 'Where's the pretty girl?' They say that the attitude of the male customers towards the female boss is very rude. They do not actually check their age, but if there are customers who are presumed to be elderly, the president or guests ask them to leave. In official media such as articles, it seems to be politely called the No Senior Zone, but in fact, it is known as the No Le Tak Zone in the community. A 'No Senior Zone' cafe, which banned people over the age of 60, also appeared. Pros and cons were divided as opinions clashed with opinions that the measure was to prevent some rude customers and that it was an unreasonable view that people over the age of 60 were not considered human beings. # "Isn't the old man a person"... Pros and cons for the appearance of 'No Senior Zone' are heating up According to a comment from a regular customer of the cafe, sexual harassment such as 'I come because the coffee shop madam is pretty' to the female president
There are several grandfathers in the neighborhood who make sexual remarks, but even if they tell them not to, they say, 'A coffee shop madam is a madam. What do you say,” he said, revealing that it was difficult to handle such people by himself anymore. He added that regular seniors who come often can come without worrying about it. #1 #2
“Even if no entry is prohibited, the city center is already a no-senior zone” - The Herald Economy (May 22, 2023)
7.5. no tube zone
More and more cases of Internet broadcasters entering restaurants without prior consent and interfering with business or conflicts with customers who do not want to be filmed have begun to occur, and from about 2018, filming compensation is almost equal to that of previous bloggers . The evil has reached a point where it is widely spread nationwide, such as making unreasonable demands such as making requests or providing all menus free of charge.
Unable to endure the rapid deterioration of the situation, in the end, the so-called 'No Tube Ver Zone' (refer to related articles ), which completely bans personal broadcasting or shooting in restaurants, began to appear, and as of 2019, there are many No Tube Zone stores nationwide. has increased In particular, the damage to the store exposed to the broadcast was so severe (although this is an extreme example, in the case of Yeondon, suffering from BJ and YouTubers' annoyance was also one of the reasons for the business difficulties, and eventually moved the store to Jeju Island and immediately became a No Tuber zone. It is known that it is.) There are also extremely sensitive reactions from related stores.
In addition, there is a case where photography is prohibited within the restaurant itself. They often point out that food made by chefs is also a kind of art to prevent the harmful effects of overtourism.
Unable to endure the rapid deterioration of the situation, in the end, the so-called 'No Tube Ver Zone' (refer to related articles ), which completely bans personal broadcasting or shooting in restaurants, began to appear, and as of 2019, there are many No Tube Zone stores nationwide. has increased In particular, the damage to the store exposed to the broadcast was so severe (although this is an extreme example, in the case of Yeondon, suffering from BJ and YouTubers' annoyance was also one of the reasons for the business difficulties, and eventually moved the store to Jeju Island and immediately became a No Tuber zone. It is known that it is.) There are also extremely sensitive reactions from related stores.
In addition, there is a case where photography is prohibited within the restaurant itself. They often point out that food made by chefs is also a kind of art to prevent the harmful effects of overtourism.
7.6. No Bad Parents Zone
No Bad Parents Zone. It means "parents who cannot properly manage their children are prohibited from entering", and it is not a no-kids zone, but it was created with the meaning of asking parents accompanying children to take thorough care. It is spreading around Jeju Island and Daegu as it is attracting attention as an alternative that does not take away the rights of good children and parents while keeping the motive for the creation of No Kids Zone, that is, to prevent damage to businesses caused by unconcious parents. article
7.7. no believer zone
A cafe with a sign saying, " Church officials, please refrain from entering." After
the incident with Jeon Kwang-hoon, shops that do not accept believers (especially Presbyterian Protestants ) as customers are springing up.
In fact, a similar concept has existed before, and an example is blocking religious people from entering hospitals (especially emergency rooms).
There is also a sub-concept called 'No Shincheonji Zone', and most churches, cathedrals, and some stores and facilities in areas where Shincheonji group infections have occurred are blocking the entry of Shincheonji members. The reason is harvesting (referring to the act of infiltrating a church and stealing people from Shincheonji under the pretext of Bible education) and prevention of corona spread.
the incident with Jeon Kwang-hoon, shops that do not accept believers (especially Presbyterian Protestants ) as customers are springing up.
In fact, a similar concept has existed before, and an example is blocking religious people from entering hospitals (especially emergency rooms).
There is also a sub-concept called 'No Shincheonji Zone', and most churches, cathedrals, and some stores and facilities in areas where Shincheonji group infections have occurred are blocking the entry of Shincheonji members. The reason is harvesting (referring to the act of infiltrating a church and stealing people from Shincheonji under the pretext of Bible education) and prevention of corona spread.
7.8. no business zone
As of 2021, all business meetings, including legal and insurance, are prohibited at KFC Gyodae Station. There is a sign saying that only coffee and cola drinks are not sold here. (Seoul National University of Education Station has many offices of courts, registry offices, lawyers, judicial scriveners, and tax accountants, so people who come to see related work often use cafes or fast food restaurants for consultations or meetings with acquaintances. Okay, compared to other places, it was crowded with people who ordered coffee and spent several hours throughout the morning and afternoon, as well as during lunchtime. Some cafes in Gyodae Station also have a no-business zone.)
7.9. Roh Professor John
At a bar in front of Pusan National University, some professors showed up when they were doing bad things. There was also a sign next to the No Kwan Ra Zone prohibiting drunk people from entering.
However, it was soon withdrawn after protests from the university faculty.
7.10. Disabled related
Legally discriminating against the disabled and forbidding entry is clearly illegal and socially reprehensible, so of course there is no place to openly mark the elderly with disabilities. Stores that arbitrarily discriminate against people with disabilities or lack facilities for people with disabilities are criticized for being zoned for the disabled (e.g. Lotte Mart guide dog refusal case )
7.11. No Unbacked Zone
“I can’t eat here”... Appearance of unvaccinated restaurant map It was created in relation to
the quarantine pass, and refers to a place that prevents people who have never been vaccinated against COVID-19 from entering.
the quarantine pass, and refers to a place that prevents people who have never been vaccinated against COVID-19 from entering.
7.12. no middle age
A camping site in Seoul has appeared that will not accept all couples over the age of 40.
It's similar to the Noah Existing Restaurant above, but it's a little different, it seems that men and women over 40 years of age check each one and don't accept it at all. Strangely, many of the people in their 20s and 30s who were actively in favor of the No-Kids Zone, which did not fall under the middle-aged zone because they were not yet in their 40s, actively opposed the appearance of the middle-aged zone, saying, "The business owner is completely a human being." Discrimination! Aren't middle-aged people people?", "Don't generalize all middle-aged people!", "No-kids zone and old-middle-aged zone have different purposes, so why is there a middle-aged zone?". On the other hand, adults in their 20s and 30s have passed the children who fall under the no-kids zone, but they will someday fall into the middle-aged or older people in their 40s or older. There was also a story that they opposed it because they feared it would create more.
On the contrary, people who were negative about No Kids Zone saw this and said, "Shouldn't we have expected that something like the Old Middle Ages would appear someday when we actively supported No Kids Zone?", "Children differ from adults in money, power, and voting rights . I didn't have the right to speak because I didn't have the power to say it, so I just kept quiet. If instead of the no-kids zone, there were old male zones, old women zones, and old middle-aged zones, they would have risen a long time ago as discrimination and all of them would have disappeared." criticized as
It's similar to the Noah Existing Restaurant above, but it's a little different, it seems that men and women over 40 years of age check each one and don't accept it at all. Strangely, many of the people in their 20s and 30s who were actively in favor of the No-Kids Zone, which did not fall under the middle-aged zone because they were not yet in their 40s, actively opposed the appearance of the middle-aged zone, saying, "The business owner is completely a human being." Discrimination! Aren't middle-aged people people?", "Don't generalize all middle-aged people!", "No-kids zone and old-middle-aged zone have different purposes, so why is there a middle-aged zone?". On the other hand, adults in their 20s and 30s have passed the children who fall under the no-kids zone, but they will someday fall into the middle-aged or older people in their 40s or older. There was also a story that they opposed it because they feared it would create more.
On the contrary, people who were negative about No Kids Zone saw this and said, "Shouldn't we have expected that something like the Old Middle Ages would appear someday when we actively supported No Kids Zone?", "Children differ from adults in money, power, and voting rights . I didn't have the right to speak because I didn't have the power to say it, so I just kept quiet. If instead of the no-kids zone, there were old male zones, old women zones, and old middle-aged zones, they would have risen a long time ago as discrimination and all of them would have disappeared." criticized as
7.13. No Alien Zone
Controversy over 'Koreans are prohibited from entering Watazumi Shrine' in Tsushima, Japan
It is known that there are no foreigner zones in shops in some countries overseas. It is not only the senseless behavior of a few foreign tourists, but also their native language or English without using basic language expressions of the country while traveling abroad.The fact that is often used also seems to have an effect. In particular, it caused controversy by posting phrases such as “Koreans are not allowed to enter”, “Koreans are not accepted”, and “Koreans are not accepted because there are no staff who speak Korean well” on Tsushima Island in Japan . [Close-up camera] Tsushima, a reason why 'Koreans are banned'? There is also a no-foreigner zone in Korea. But the reason is simply that the boss can't speak English (...). The conclusion was made because the employees couldn't speak a foreign language other than English, so it was difficult to entertain foreigners...
It is known that there are no foreigner zones in shops in some countries overseas. It is not only the senseless behavior of a few foreign tourists, but also their native language or English without using basic language expressions of the country while traveling abroad.The fact that is often used also seems to have an effect. In particular, it caused controversy by posting phrases such as “Koreans are not allowed to enter”, “Koreans are not accepted”, and “Koreans are not accepted because there are no staff who speak Korean well” on Tsushima Island in Japan . [Close-up camera] Tsushima, a reason why 'Koreans are banned'? There is also a no-foreigner zone in Korea. But the reason is simply that the boss can't speak English (...). The conclusion was made because the employees couldn't speak a foreign language other than English, so it was difficult to entertain foreigners...
7.14. no queer zone
It refers to a place that blocks the entry of sexual minorities, and it is called a no-queer zone because the word queer is used as a related word. It mainly refers to places where homosexuals are prohibited from entering. If bisexuals and transgenders are also blocked from entering, it is a no-queer zone in a broad sense.
7.15. No Courier Zone
Although the name has not been established, controversy continues over the prohibition of the use of ground parking lots and passageways for delivery vehicles for the safety of residents in some apartment complexes. After doing that, they complain to the station saying that the package cannot be delivered. Usually, these apartments have a lot of parcels. Some underground parking lots allow entry, but due to the nature of delivery vehicles, the height of the pass is often a problem because the garage is high. Even in high-rise apartments, there are places where the use of elevators is prohibited or a separate fee is charged, but the same thing is purchased by residents.
8. Similar cases
As tourist attractions in Mural Village, such as Bukchon Hanok Village and Gamcheon Culture Village, have been created, in particular, due to the reckless behavior and commotion of some tourists, the locals, not the shops, are starting to claim themselves as No Travel Zone. Most of the mural villages have many detached houses, and rural and rural areas are no exception, so some local residents are deleting the murals altogether, installing a no-travel zone, or voluntarily policing the residents because of the actions of these tourists. etc. are showing similar examples.
In particular, this place is not even a store, but it invades the yard of another person's house, takes pictures in front of the window while taking pictures, or makes some noise at night, so complaints are filed for invasion of privacy that are more serious than the store, or residents even call the village patrol team. By forming a village, residents themselves patrol the village or install CCTVs.
Unlike shops designated as No Kids Zone, which are suffering from heartache due to children, this shop is in more serious trouble than shops that designate No Kids Zone because of the senseless behavior of some tourists, both adults and children. In addition, at night, there are drunken customers, bullies, gangsters, and thieves. Compared to the No Kids Zone store, where children suffer, the residents are even more troubled as they are older adults.
The difference is that it is a region and a neighborhood, unlike a private property and a store with a characteristic, and that all residents are sympathetic and sympathetic to this, so the residents unite to crack down on tourists or file complaints. In addition, the store owner can designate a No Kids Zone directly, but in the No Travel Zone neighborhood, the head of an administrative agency such as a local mayor or county governor or a local member of the National Assembly accepts the grievances of residents and, at their discretion, creates a No Travel Zone by administrative order for the protection of residents. There is a point that it can be canceled or banned from tourist attractions according to the authority command to trigger the # # If you're going to pee and kiss the MBC News Desk Rodman, don't come to my neighborhood!!
In particular, this place is not even a store, but it invades the yard of another person's house, takes pictures in front of the window while taking pictures, or makes some noise at night, so complaints are filed for invasion of privacy that are more serious than the store, or residents even call the village patrol team. By forming a village, residents themselves patrol the village or install CCTVs.
Unlike shops designated as No Kids Zone, which are suffering from heartache due to children, this shop is in more serious trouble than shops that designate No Kids Zone because of the senseless behavior of some tourists, both adults and children. In addition, at night, there are drunken customers, bullies, gangsters, and thieves. Compared to the No Kids Zone store, where children suffer, the residents are even more troubled as they are older adults.
The difference is that it is a region and a neighborhood, unlike a private property and a store with a characteristic, and that all residents are sympathetic and sympathetic to this, so the residents unite to crack down on tourists or file complaints. In addition, the store owner can designate a No Kids Zone directly, but in the No Travel Zone neighborhood, the head of an administrative agency such as a local mayor or county governor or a local member of the National Assembly accepts the grievances of residents and, at their discretion, creates a No Travel Zone by administrative order for the protection of residents. There is a point that it can be canceled or banned from tourist attractions according to the authority command to trigger the # # If you're going to pee and kiss the MBC News Desk Rodman, don't come to my neighborhood!!
9. No Kids Zone, Kids Zone, Kids Cafe Map
Reaction on social media such as No Kids Zone, Kids Zone, Kids Cafe Map and Twitter is generally positive. It is because parents with children can know information about each store in advance, so there is little chance of being barred from the door or walking in vain when you visit without knowing that it is a no-kids zone.
It is known that some store owners oppose the disclosure of the above map on the basis of infringement of commercial rights, infringement of store's own rights, and defamation, or are considering accusation or even legal action. The store owners say, 'Did you know we did it because we wanted to do a No Kids Zone? In fact, even though they are not in the area where they live, the owners' concerns are not unfounded, as they continue to engage in no-show terrorism and systematically share methods of disrupting business just because it is a no-
kids zone. There are even business owners who have suffered damage by posting malicious comments on the store's Instagram or making threatening phone calls. Aren't most of you having kids? There were also insulting remarks such as, “Don’t you raise children?” “You also have children, but only your children are your children and other people’s children are not children,” “I will do the same for your children,” and “Let’s retaliate with a boycott.” Some even argued that the shop owner's children would pay the same price in retaliation, and that the children of the No Kids Zone store should not be allowed to play with their children or hang out with them, causing controversy and stir.
10. Other
- In developed countries such as the United States and Western Europe, No Kids Zones have already existed since the 1980s. An article about an apartment that prohibits children from entering itself
- Although it is mentioned in the text, no-show retaliation of making a reservation and canceling the reservation while saying that it is a no-kids zone has been widely spread, but at the time of reservation, the fact that it is a no-kids zone has been notified in advance, and the other party has also recognized it. If there are circumstances to be recognized, it is difficult to justify the cancellation of the reservation for that reason. If you decide that this is intentional and go to court, it will be obstruction of business. In this case, it is very likely that the willfulness of 'obstruction of business' will be recognized in the sense that it was determined and attempted. It is most representatively mentioned in relation to the recognition of no-show as obstruction of business.
- Even in movie theaters, voices insisting on the introduction of a no-kids zone are heard from audiences and workers, especially because of the problem of children crying, playing, or playing pranks when screening movies or animations for all audiences (in the Korean television rating system As various late-night animations on TV, which were judged to be suitable for 15-year-old users, were transferred to the theater version, the audience who went to see the theatrical version of the animation became the main victim of children as the overall rating was given due to the generous deliberation of the Korea Media Rating Board. There is even a rain of voices saying, “Let’s not screen it,” “Show movies for people over 12 years of age first,” and “Do not let children in even in movies for people over 12 years old.” In terms of actual movie viewing, among the rest of the movie ratings, 12 and 15 years of age or older can watch movies from middle school and high school students, in principle, but children who have not entered middle school or junior high school students who have not entered high school when accompanied by a guardian. It is also possible to visit. However, at the request of the film producers, there are cases where some of the films are strictly for junior high school students or older and high school students or older, even if accompanied by a guardian. In a similar tone, an extreme broadcasting club Suggested an opinion to report to the police if a viewer below the viewing level is watching a TV in this public place (restaurant, jjimjilbang, terminal, etc.). For example, if a 9-year-old child is watching Infinite Challenge, a 12-year-old viewer in a jjimjilbang, they report it, but in the end, it failed without gaining consensus. In fact, there is no legal basis to punish or forcibly stop underage youth from watching the broadcast. In the Juvenile Act, there is no relevant law applicable to the youth themselves, and if they are too young, the Juvenile Act does not apply.
- In opposition to the No Kids Zone, the 'Yes Kids Zone' started appearing in the late 2010s and is spreading with active support from parents. In 2022, multinational fast-food companies also launched Yes Kids Zone in advertisements. #
- The story of a No Kids Zone cafe operator having a conflict with a customer because he brought his 8-year-old daughter to the cafe is becoming a hot topic. Pros and cons are fierce on the subject of "Can the president's son not enter the No Kids Zone?" #
- The Jeju Provincial Assembly held a discussion to make an ordinance banning the no-kids zone.