The court has dismissed the pseudo-religious group Baby Garden's request for an injunction to ban the broadcasting of Netflix's documentary series 'In The Name of God: A Holy Betrayal.'

According to YTN, on May 24, the Seoul Central District Court Civil Settlement Division 50, headed by Chief Judge Park Beom Seok, decided to reject Baby Garden's application and ordered them to bear the costs of the lawsuit against MBC and Director Cho Sung Hyun.

The judge explained that MBC and Director Cho do not possess the rights to the documentary series and that even if they had the video, it would be unlikely to result in further violations of human rights against Baby Garden and its founder Kim Ki Soon.

In March, Baby Garden had initially filed an injunction against MBC, Director Cho Sung Hyun, and Netflix Korea, claiming that 'In the Name of God: A Holy Betrayal' contained false information about their organization. Baby Garden later withdrew its application for a provisional injunction against Netflix Korea and filed a lawsuit against MBC and Director Cho. The pseudo-religion also applied for a provisional injunction against Netflix headquarters to halt the streaming of the docuseries but withdrew the application on May 15.

'In the Name of God: A Holy Betrayal' was released by Netflix in March, and features the story of Kim Ki Soon, the founder of Baby Garden, in its fifth and sixth episodes. 

Baby Garden is a pseudo-religious organization established as a collaborative village by Kim Ki Soon in 1982. The documentary alleges that Kim Ki Soon converted believers' private property into church property, subjected them to forced labor, and used donations to establish Synnara Distribution (now Synnara Records), which led to its rapid growth.

Following the release of 'In the Name of God: A Holy Betrayal,' Director Cho Sung Hyun held a press conference in March at the Lotte Hotel in Eulji-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul. He mentioned that there may be an application for a provisional injunction against the broadcasting of Baby Garden and expressed concerns about the acceptance of such injunctions even when the content is based on factual reporting.