While I'm sure this is a very popular ruling (especially to people who happen to not eat dogs and personally find eating them repulsive), based on what can be seen here, from a democratic and legal perspective, the court should have avoided expanding liability on its own initiative by claiming a use that still is accepted by 30% of the population as "not a proper reason". That should have been left to the legislature and if the legislature refuses to pass a ruling to that effect it should be taken as a hint that there is insufficient consensus, at least in South Korea, to deem the act as undeniably wrong, or to impose coercive measures.
|