Gwangju

B of partnership

Attorney Cho Jae-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant

Doese of litigation performers, Lee Jong-soo, Lee Jin

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

For the name, address, and telephone number in the direction of disclosure of data related to rearrangement projects, such as agenda items;

The order to disclose shall be revoked.

A. The plaintiff's status

The plaintiff was authorized to establish a housing reconstruction project for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project with 00-dong 00-dong 194 and 492 meters as a business area in Gwangju-gu, and is a housing reconstruction improvement project partnership that currently implements a housing reconstruction project after being designated as a project implementer by the defendant on June 10, 2011.

B. C’s request for information disclosure against the Plaintiff

On May 1, 2014, C, the owner of the land, etc. in the said project zone, requested the Plaintiff to disclose all of the list of members present at the general meeting of members and written resolution and the list of members except resident registration numbers. On May 12, 2014 and May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that the Plaintiff disclose all of the written resolution and the remaining parts of the list of members, excluding personal information, such as the name, address, resident registration number, telephone number, etc.

On June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff again filed a claim with the Plaintiff for disclosure of information on the register of partners (including the union members' number, address, name, owned Dong and Dong, contact telephone number). On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that the remainder, other than personal information, such as the union members' identification number, name, address, resident registration number, present address, and owned Dong and Dong telephone number, should be disclosed.

C. The Defendant’s refusal of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff to disclose information as above, and the Defendant, on June 25, 2014, pursuant to Article 77(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

7. By December 15, 198, C issued an order to take measures to disclose names, addresses, details of rights, telephone numbers, etc. other than resident registration numbers among the list of union members and written resolution ("disposition of this case") (the part ordering disclosure of names, addresses, and telephone numbers among the above order to take measures).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3-9, 10, 11, 12, and Gap evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

This case’s disposition is unlawful, even if there is an explicit objection against the owner’s explicit objection to the personal information, such as the name, address, and telephone number, and thus compelling disclosure of the phone number against the owner’s will.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes.

C. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in addition to the purport of the relevant statutes, the Plaintiff’s disclosure of relevant data, such as name, address, list of union members including telephone numbers, written resolution, etc. to C pursuant to Article 81(6) of the Urban Improvement Act cannot be said to contravene Article 81(3) of the Urban Improvement Act or the purport of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

1) Article 81(3) of the former Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012); Article 22(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 506, Aug. 2, 2012) provides that “documents and related materials subject to disclosure under Article 81(1) of the Act and Article 70 of the Decree shall be disclosed to the public excluding names, resident registration numbers and addresses to protect personal information,” but the current Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012) provides that “The documents and related materials subject to disclosure under Article 81(3) of the Act shall be disclosed to the public.”

Article 81(3) of the Act provides that "the chairperson of a promotion committee or a project implementer shall disclose information excluded from disclosure, except resident registration numbers, in the case of disclosure, perusal, reproduction, etc. pursuant to paragraph (1) or (6)." (2) Information on the implementation of a rearrangement project, such as the name, address, telephone number, and written resolution, in the list of union members, needs to be disclosed to the owners of land, etc. or union members who wish to monitor the dissolution of the promotion committee or the cancellation of designation of the rearrangement zone, etc., and Article 81(6) and (7) of the Act strictly limits the qualifications for requesting perusal or duplication and the purpose of use of data.

3) Article 18(2)2 of the Personal Information Protection Act (hereinafter “Personal Information Protection Act”) provides that a personal information manager shall do so under other Acts.

Article 81(3) and (6) of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information provides that “A person who receives personal information from a personal information manager may use the personal information for any purpose other than the original purpose or provide it to a third party, except where there is a possibility of unfairly infringing on the interests of the data subject or a third party.” Thus, barring special circumstances such as C’s name, address, and telephone number may unfairly infringe on the interests of the data subject member, the Plaintiff may disclose the list of the members including the name, address, and telephone number to C pursuant to Article 81(3) and (6) of the Act, even without the individual consent of the data subject. Article 19 of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information provides that “A person who receives personal information from a personal information manager shall not use the personal information for any purpose other than the original purpose, or provide it to a third party, except where there is a separate consent from the data subject or where there is a special provision in other Acts.” Article 71(2) of the said Act provides that “A person who uses personal information or provides it to a third party in violation of Article 19 of the Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Park Jong-soo

Judicial branch support

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.