Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District

The representative director omitted

Attorney omitted

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court comprehensively borrowed KRW 50 million from the Defendant, but did not pay interest of KRW 249,418 on March 21, 2010, while the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 50,000 from the Defendant. The Defendant did not pay the interest of KRW 249,418.

3. In light of Article 23(1) of the former Use and Protection of Credit Information Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9617, Apr. 1, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "former Credit Information Act") and Articles 2(1) and 12(3) of the Enforcement Decree thereof (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21765, Oct. 1, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree"), and Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Credit Information Use and Protection Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21765, Oct. 1, 2009; hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement on the Provision and Use of Personal Credit Information, signed by the Plaintiff at the time of the loan, it does not include personal credit information that the Defendant may provide to credit information dealers, etc. with the Plaintiff's consent, and Article 6(1) of the Credit Information Management Rules provides the Plaintiff with overdue interest for more than three months, and thus, the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff's claim for overdue interest.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. The former Credit Information Act was wholly amended by Act No. 9617, Apr. 1, 2009; (2) since October 1, 2009, Article 32(1) of the former Credit Information Act provides that where a credit information provider/user intends to provide another person with personal credit information prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as information on loans and guarantees, prior consent shall be obtained from the relevant individual in a certain way. Under the amended Credit Information Act, Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 28(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Credit Information Act, effective as of October 1, 2009, which was wholly amended and enforced as of the same day, provides that “personal credit information prescribed by Presidential Decree” means (i) information identifying an individual, such as name and address; (iii) information that can determine the credit rating of an individual, such as overdue loans/guarantee; (iv) information that can determine whether an individual is liable to pay taxes, such as delinquent taxes or delinquent taxes; and (v) information related to auction or rehabilitation, etc.

B. According to the above Credit Information Act and the Enforcement Decree, the amended Credit Information Act, other than the former Credit Information Act, shall apply to the act that the Defendant, a financial institution, provides an individual's credit information acquired in connection with its business to another person after October 1, 2009. In addition, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, a financial institution, intended to provide an individual's credit information to another person, may obtain prior consent from the relevant individual, but may provide the information without the consent of the relevant individual in cases where the Defendant,

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendant’s provision of information on the Plaintiff’s arrears to another person can be known at the end of March 2010. Therefore, the lower court should have determined not by the former Credit Information Act and the Enforcement Decree, but by applying the amended Credit Information Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, which entered into force on April 1, 2009.

Meanwhile, the lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s tort liability on the premise that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff’s overdue information to “other financial institutions”. However, even upon examining the record, the Plaintiff did not assert that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff’s overdue information to “other financial institutions”, and there is no evidence to prove such fact. Rather, according to the record, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff’s overdue information to the Korea Credit Information Company, etc., and the other financial institutions were only provided with the information from the Korea Credit Information Company.

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on whether the Korea Credit Information Company, etc. receiving information on the Plaintiff’s arrears from the Defendant constitutes a credit information collection agency or a credit bureau, and should have determined whether the Defendant’s act of providing the instant overdue information violates the aforementioned Credit Information Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof.

C. On the other hand, the credit information management rules established by the Korea Federation of Credit Information which is a centralized credit information collection agency under the Credit Information Act provide that the credit information subject shall register the loan principal, interest, etc. with the Korea Federation of Banks within 10 days from the date on which the cause occurred if the credit information subject fails to pay the loan principal, interest, etc. for more than three months, but this is only a standard to apply to the registration of credit information in the Korea Federation of Banks. Therefore, it is not reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s act of providing the credit information subject with the loan principal or interest to the Korea Credit Information Company, etc. constitutes a tort solely on the ground that the Plaintiff

3. Nevertheless, in light of the provisions of the former Credit Information Act and the Enforcement Decree, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s provision of overdue information for less than three months to another financial institution constitutes tort. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Credit Information Act, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Accordingly, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo

Chief Justice Park Poe-dae

Justices Go Young-young