공개청구 등
1. All appeals are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 5, the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 5, the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 of Defendant KB, and the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 of Defendant LBr’s grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court, on the grounds the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendants, who are telecommunications business operators and information and communications service providers prescribed in the Telecommunications Business Act, are obligated to disclose “the current status of providing the relevant user’s personal information to a third party upon a request for the provision of communications data under Article 83(3) of the Telecommunications Business Act” to the user pursuant to Article 30(2)2 of the Information and Communications Network Act
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the request for provision of communications data under the Information and Communications Network Act, Enforcement Decree of the said Act, Personal Information Protection Act, and Telecommunications Business Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical
2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 6, 2, and 1, and 4 of Defendant ELB’s grounds of appeal, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Defendants were liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for emotional distress damages arising therefrom, on the grounds that the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ right to self-determination of personal information by refusing or delaying to provide access to information under Article 30(2)2 of the Information and Communications Network Act for a considerable period of time, notwithstanding the Plaintiffs’ request for access to information.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court’s aforementioned judgment constitutes a tort.