2. The defendant shall pay KRW 500,000 to the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. A quarter of the total litigation cost shall be borne by the Defendant, and the remainder by the Plaintiff, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5; Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); and the fact-finding with respect to the chief of ○○○○ Police Station of this court; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. The Defendant’s main source of business is “NAV” (the domain name is “www.naver.com,” and hereinafter “NAV”) as an Internet information provider operating a domestic Internet portal site that provides information search, music (1) and entertainment services on the Internet, and as the main source of business, advertising profits earned from running an advertising business by exposing a NAV to users visiting NAVs for the use of the service provided by the Defendant, or providing derived services as a result of priority search.

B. In order to use various services provided by NAV, an application for subscription according to the form set by the Defendant and an agreement to the terms and conditions should be entered into the membership. 3) Of the Defendant’s terms and conditions of use and the Privacy Policy, the content relating to the protection of personal information is as follows:

The defendant under Article 7 (Obligation to Protect Personal Information) of the Terms and Conditions for Use 1) The defendant shall endeavor to protect the personal information of its members as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the "Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.". 2) The personal information management policy applies to the protection and use of personal information. (a) The collection and use of personal information; (b) the payment of fees for the provision of services; (c) the development and marketing and advertisement of new services; (c) the defendant shall use the personal information of its users within the scope notified by the "2. Collection and use of personal information"; and (d) the defendant shall not, in principle, use the personal information beyond the scope of the user's prior consent, or disclose it to the outside without the user's prior consent. - If the user has consented to disclosure in advance, the defendant shall immediately verify the technical/management measures for the protection of the user's personal information, and if requested by an investigative agency in accordance with the procedures and methods prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, to ensure the loss of personal information, theft or its stability and implementation measures:

다. 원고는 2004. 10. 10. 위 네이버 약관에 동의하고 회원으로 가입하여 피고와 사이에 서비스 이용계약을 체결한 이후 네이버에 개설된 “△△△△△△ Class^^”라는 카페(홈페이지 주소 생략, 이하 ‘이 사건 카페’라 한다)의 회원으로 활동하였는데, 이 사건 카페는 영어 학원 강사가 수강생들을 대상으로 강의활용 목적으로 만든 것이어서 회원 수는 1,500명 정도이나 실제로 활동하는 회원의 대부분은 당시 강의를 듣는 수강생들이었다.

D. On March 4, 2010, at the time of returning to the Republic of Korea, Nonparty 1: (a) discovered that Nonparty 2 was posted a photograph of Nonparty 2, who reads Nonparty 2’s wood Nonparty 2’s wood Nonparty 2’s wood Nonparty 1’s wood Nonparty 2’s wood Nonparty 2’s wood the wood (hereinafter “instant bulletin”); and (b) indicated the instant wood’s wood’s wook bulletin board.

E. After that, on March 5, 2010, Nonparty 1 filed a complaint on the ground of defamation against those who posted the instant bulletin on the Internet. On March 8, 2010, the chief of the ○○○○○ Police Station requested the Defendant to present the personal information of the Plaintiff and two other persons as follows. In this case, the chief of the ○○○ Police Station did not provide any other data in addition to the written request for the provision of communication data.

The web address of a web-site suspect who violated the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) in connection with a reason for the use of the list subscriber in the main sentence, and the investigation of a suspect who violated the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation address omitted)/413: The date of posting a notice on March 4, 2010 (No. : Political ? / Non-Party 2 and Non-Party 1.)

F. After this frame, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff and two other parties including the Plaintiff to the head of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Office.

G. Accordingly, the chief of the ○○○○ Police Station summoned the Plaintiff, thereby investigating the alleged defamation. However, on April 28, 2010, the complaint against the Plaintiff was withdrawn and the case was concluded.

H. Meanwhile, the Defendant was requested by an investigative agency to provide personal information of the user corresponding to a number of hundred thousands annually, and established and operated a personal information protection team comprised of one director, one team leader staff member, and four working-level staff as an organization exclusively in charge of communication secrets. However, the said exclusive organization did not hold a separate inspection meeting on the case of request for individual communication data.

2. Relevant statutes;

A. The main contents of Article 54 (Protection of Communications Secrets) of the former Telecommunications Business Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10166, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) are as follows.

(1) No person may infringe on or divulge the confidentiality of communications dealt with by telecommunications business operators.

(2) No person who is or was engaged in telecommunications services shall divulge secrets of other persons he/she becomes aware of in connection with communications while in office.

(3) A telecommunications business operator may comply with a request for the perusal or submission of the following data (hereinafter referred to as "communication data") in order to prevent any danger or injury to a trial, investigation, execution of a sentence, or national security by the court, a prosecutor or the head of an investigative agency or the head of an intelligence and investigative agency:

1. Names of users;

2. Resident registration numbers of users;

3. Addresses of users;

4. Phone numbers of users;

5. IDs (referring to the identification codes of users used to identify the rightful users of computer systems or communications networks);

6. Dates on which users subscribe or terminate their subscriptions.

(4) The request for provision of communications data pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (3) shall be made in writing (hereinafter referred to as "written request for provision of data"), which states a reason for such request, relation with the relevant user and the scope of necessary data: Provided, That where it is impossible to make a request in writing due to an urgent reason, such request may be made without resorting to writing, and when such reason disappears, a written request for provision of data shall

(8) A telecommunications business operator shall establish and operate an exclusive organization in charge of affairs concerning privacy of communications of users, and matters concerning the functions and composition of such exclusive organization shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

B. The main contents of Article 53 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Telecommunications Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22075, Mar. 15, 2010) are as follows.

(3) An exclusive organization under Article 54 (8) of the former Telecommunications Business Act (hereinafter referred to as "exclusive organization") shall perform the following functions:

1. Overall control of affairs concerning privacy of communications of users;

2. Control over unlawful or unjust acts of infringement of communications secrecy of users by employees of a telecommunications business operator or by a third party;

5. Handling complaints filed by users or opinions concerning privacy of communications;

6. Education of employees in charge of affairs concerning privacy of communications;

7. Other matters necessary for the protection of privacy of communications of users.

3. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Article 54(3) of the former Telecommunications Business Act does not impose an obligation on a telecommunications business operator when the head of an investigating agency requests a telecommunications business operator to provide personal information. On the other hand, the Defendant made efforts to protect the personal information provided by the Plaintiff through the terms and conditions of use, etc. with the Plaintiff to the maximum extent possible. This is clearly stipulated in the terms and conditions and the personal information handling policy, and the Plaintiff provided the personal information to the Defendant

2) Even if there is a request from an investigative agency to provide personal information, the Defendant should have judged harmoniously the purpose of the provisions of the former Telecommunications Business Act and the obligation to endeavor to protect the Plaintiff’s personal information and provided the investigation agency with the Plaintiff’s personal information within a limited scope, but the Defendant was aware of the Plaintiff’s duty to protect personal information and provided the

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s act violates the duty to protect personal information under the contractual breach and the good faith principle with respect to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for mental damage caused by such breach.

B. The plaintiff's interest of infringement

1) The right to self-determination of personal information is a right in which the subject of personal information determines when and to what extent he/she would know and use, and is guaranteed by the general personal right derived from the first sentence of Article 10 of the Constitution and the right to privacy under Article 17 of the Constitution. As can be seen, personal information subject to protection of the right to self-determination of personal information, which is the right to self-determination of personal information, is a right to protect the disclosure and use of personal information, refers to all information that features the personality of an individual, such as personal body, faith, social status, status, etc., and that enables identification of the identity of an individual. In addition, the act of investigating, collecting, keeping, processing, and using such personal information constitutes a limitation on the right to self-determination

Meanwhile, the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 21(1) of the Constitution refers to the freedom of expression of ideas or opinions and the freedom of dissemination thereof. The freedom of expression includes the freedom of anonymous expression to express and disseminate one’s ideas or opinions under anonymous or false names without disclosing his/her identity. The freedom of expression is a means of free expression of character at a personal level, at the same time as a means of rational and constructive formation and truth finding, and is an essential fundamental right to the existence and development of the democratic state and society at a social level. In particular, expressions made anonymous or false names are fundamental rights that are indispensable for the formation and development of the democratic state and society. In short, the freedom of expression can be criticized for the State power or society by freely expressing and disseminating his/her thoughts and ideas without breaking the outer limit, and through this, it can not be deducted from the content of the freedom of expression in view of the possibility that political and social weak will also be reflected in the State’s decision-making process, and thus, it can be combined with the formation of a variety of economic power and Internet space.

2) As to the instant case, the Plaintiff posted the instant notice on the bulletin board of the instant car page, and the Defendant provided the Plaintiff’s “Neber ID, name, resident number, e-mail, cell phone number, cell phone number, and network subscription date” to the head of the instant ○○○○ Police Station upon receiving a request from the head of the instant ○○○○○○○ Police Station to request the entirety of the personal information of the posted person. In light of the above legal principles, barring any special circumstances, the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination of personal information and freedom of anonymous speech, barring any other special circumstances, are infringed on due to the Defendant’s above act. The Plaintiff’s infringement of legal interest is examined as to the Defendant’s responsibility and the Plaintiff’s damage.

C. Violation of the Defendant’s duty to protect

1) Considering the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant’s duty to protect personal information of its members pursuant to the terms and conditions of use; (ii) as a telecommunications business operator, the Defendant appears to have a considerable public nature in handling affairs related to the protection of personal information in light of the content and function of the user’s service; and (iii) the Defendant’s advertising proceeds increase in proportion to the number of its users, which leads to the increase in the number of its users’ profit-making; and (iv) if the users are aware that such trust is likely to be broken, the Defendant’s duty to provide the user’s personal information should be considered to be able to protect the user’s personal information without any prior consent; and (v) the Defendant’s duty to provide the user’s personal information at the same time should not be guaranteed by the former Telecommunications Business Act, taking into account the outcome and function of the user’s service; and (v) the Defendant’s duty to provide the user’s personal information at the same time to protect the user’s own request.

2) As to the instant case, the following circumstances revealed in the Plaintiff’s personal information management policy, i.e., the Defendant’s “personal information management policy” states that “where there is a request from an investigative agency pursuant to the provisions of statutes or by the procedures and methods prescribed in the statutes for the purpose of investigation,” personal information is disclosed to the investigation agency only under strict conditions. However, if there is a request from an investigation agency based on the former Telecommunications Business Act, the Defendant provided all of the users’ personal information without exception. ② The head of 000 police station requests the Defendant to provide personal information to the Defendant regarding the provider of the instant case, stating that “the purpose of the request is to violate the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. and Information Protection, Etc. (defluence)” and that the Plaintiff’s “personal information is not an infringement of the Plaintiff’s duty to protect personal information and personal information,” and that the Defendant’s act is not an infringement of the Plaintiff’s right to privacy and personal information, and thus, requests the Plaintiff’s “the Plaintiff’s disclosure of personal information and personal information” should not be provided.

3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A) The defendant asserts that the provision of the plaintiff's personal information to an investigative agency is in accordance with the terms and conditions of use, and the plaintiff also consented to the said terms and conditions, and that the telecommunications business operator is able to provide personal information as a matter of course in accordance with the laws and regulations, so the defendant did not

In addition, it is not possible to interpret the NAB-based terms and conditions that “if there is a “request” made by an investigative agency on the basis of the former Telecommunications Business Act, it shall provide all of the users’ personal information to an investigative agency without any exception.” In addition, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of such part or the Plaintiff was aware of such part, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. On the other hand, unless the Defendant imposes any obligation on the Defendant under Article 54(3) of the former Telecommunications Business Act as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the provision of personal information to an investigative agency is always justified. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

B) The defendant asserts that the defendant cannot be deemed to have a duty to examine the establishment of the crime and the degree of relevance between the person who requested the provision of personal information with respect to the request of an investigative agency for provision of personal information, and that the defendant cannot be expected to refuse the request if the head of the investigative agency requests personal information as prescribed by the law. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have any responsibility for the defendant in relation to

In light of the above, even though the defendant does not have to conduct a strict examination corresponding to the judicial authority with regard to the request of an investigative agency for the provision of personal information, the defendant should be deemed to have considerable public nature due to the nature of the service provided by a telecommunications business operator and an Internet comprehensive business operator for the provision of Internet information. Since community service of this case, etc. is an essential element of the freedom of anonymous speech, the defendant should have an adequate self-control device unlike a private person in relation to the request of an investigative agency for the provision of personal information. In light of the above, the defendant has the ability to protect the user's personal information at least, and the defendant has a duty to sufficiently examine whether to provide the user's personal information in consideration of the degree of illegality through balancing the legal interests infringed, the importance of the case, urgency of the case, etc., and the provision of the personal information to a certain extent. Thus, the defendant's assertion on

D. The defendant's obligation to compensate for damages

The defendant's act of providing personal information as above is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff suffered mental pain, and the defendant also could have sufficiently known such circumstances. Thus, the defendant has a duty to pay consolation money for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff to an investigation agency. Thus, the defendant's consolation money for the plaintiff shall be determined at KRW 500,00,00, considering all other circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, including the situation and contents of the plaintiff's personal information provision, the progress, the contents and nature of the notice of this case, the relationship with defamation, the necessity of investigation, the public interest and the relation between the defendant's necessity of investigation, the conflict between the defendant's duty to protect the user's personal information and the duty to protect the user's personal information, and the need to achieve the constitutional principles that declared compliance with due process, such as warrant requirement

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 500,00 to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is unfair, part of the plaintiff's appeal is accepted, and it is revoked, and the above amount is ordered to be paid to the defendant. Since the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, the plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Kim Sang-sung (Presiding Justice)

Note 1) Services provided by the Defendant, such as carpets, blobs, varbs, etc.

2) The Defendant is a value-added telecommunications business operator under the Telecommunications Business Act, and a provider of information and communications services under the Act on Promotion of Information and

3) However, even if a member does not join, a news articles may be searched and viewed.

4) At the time, the content was unfavorable to the so-called “divers ○○,” etc. among the NAN and posted on the Internet.

(5) See, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order 2003Hun-Ma282, 425 Decided July 21, 2005.

(6) Constitutional Court en banc Order 2010Hun-Ma47, 252 Decided August 23, 2012, see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order.

7) The purpose of Article 1 of the former Telecommunications Business Act is to contribute to the promotion of public welfare by ensuring the sound development of telecommunications business and the convenience of users through proper operation of telecommunications business (Article 1) and Article 3(2) of the former Telecommunications Business Act, including the fact that telecommunications business operators are engaged in the fair, speedy and accurate performance of their duties, and that Article 21 of the former Telecommunications Business Act requires a person who intends to operate value-added telecommunications business to report to the Korea Communications Commission in accordance with the requirements and procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree.

8) In this respect, the head of an investigating agency’s request for the provision of personal information under the former Telecommunications Business Act is a kind of voluntary investigation stipulated in Article 199 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Constitutional Court en banc Order 2010Hun-Ma439, Aug. 23, 2012).

9) Article 106 of the Revised Criminal Procedure Act explicitly states that “If the subject matter of seizure is a computer disc or any other similar information storage device, the court shall obtain a output or reproduction of the stored information after setting the scope of the relevant information. However, in cases where it is deemed impossible to output or copy the subject matter of seizure within a set scope or where it is deemed significantly difficult to achieve the purpose of seizure, the digital information storage device, etc. may be confiscated (Paragraph 3). When receiving information pursuant to paragraph 3, the court shall immediately notify the subject of information pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Personal Information Protection Act of the relevant fact (Paragraph

10) The Supreme Court held, “In a case where there is a conflict between the personal legal interests infringed upon by disclosing personal information without consent of the subject of information and the legal interests that can be protected as an expressive act of freely disclosing personal information without consent of the subject of information, whether an individual is a public figure, the public nature and public interest of the personal information, the reasonableness of the purpose, procedure, and form of use of the personal information, the necessity of the use of the personal information, the nature and contents of the benefits infringed on by the use of the personal information, etc., comprehensively considering the various circumstances, the Supreme Court held that “The final illegality of the act should be determined by weighing and balancing the benefits that may be gained by the protection of the personal rights of the personal information (non-public interests) and the benefits that may be gained by the expressive act (non-public interests) more superior to any other interest,” (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da42430, Sept. 2

Note 11) This means that the Defendant assumes the fact that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff’s personal information on a mechanical basis without considering the request of an investigative agency. Accordingly, if an investigative agency requests the Defendant to provide the relevant user’s communications data, it would result in the Defendant being able to receive unlimited and unlimited communications data without any restriction.

Note 12) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53387 Decided February 27, 2004 et al. is see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da

13) In this case, where the issue of defamation of a public figure is particularly problematic, the defendant, who is a telecommunications business operator, is obliged to take into account the relation between the freedom of expression and the freedom of expression of the user and actively defend and protect the user's personal information rather than cooperation with the investigation.

Note 14) The Defendant’s refusal of a request by an investigative agency to provide personal information is not subject to any disadvantage or sanction, and in such a case, there is room for an investigative agency to obtain necessary data by a warrant issued by a judge. As such, the Defendant will be obliged to determine whether to provide personal information, etc. by taking into account the user’s personal information