2. C

3. D;

4. E.

5. F;

6. G.

7. H agricultural cooperatives;

8. 1 Agricultural Cooperatives;

A. Defendant B and Defendant H Agricultural Cooperatives jointly pay 2,00,000 won and 5% per annum from September 24, 2014 to September 11, 2018; and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

B. Defendant C and Defendant H Agricultural Cooperatives jointly pay 1,00,000 won with interest of 5% per annum from January 21, 2014 to November 13, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

C. Defendant D and Defendant H Agricultural Cooperatives shall jointly pay 1,00,000 won and 5% per annum from April 25, 2014 to November 13, 2018; and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

D. Defendant E and Defendant H Agricultural Cooperatives jointly pay 1,00,000 won with interest of 5% per annum from January 1, 2015 to November 13, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

E. Defendant F and Defendant I Agricultural Cooperatives jointly pay 1,00,000 won and 5% per annum from November 21, 2013 to November 13, 2018; and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

F. Defendant G and Defendant I Agricultural Cooperatives shall jointly pay 1,00,000 won with the interest of 5% per annum from November 19, 2013 to November 13, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining words against the defendants are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Defendant B, C, D, and E worked for Defendant H Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “Defendant HF”), and Defendant F and G worked for Defendant Agricultural Cooperative (hereinafter “Defendant Agricultural Cooperative”) under its jurisdiction.

B. On February 17, 2012, the Plaintiff was issued the Plaintiff’s financial transaction inquiry details from January 1, 2010 to February 2, 2010 by Defendant HF’s side.

C. From May 23, 2013 to September 23, 2014, Defendant B connected to the computer network containing individual financial transaction information, etc. at HFK branch in Chungcheongnam-nam, and inquired the Plaintiff of five credit card transaction details via five times without the Plaintiff’s personal information collection consent. From June 26, 2013 to September 23, 2014, Defendant B inquired of 24 of the Plaintiff’s subsequent failure transaction details on six occasions.

D. Around January 20, 2014, Defendant C connected the computer network containing personal financial transaction information, etc. from HFF L L in the GFFK, and inquire into three cases of the Plaintiff’s domestic approval transaction details on one occasion without the Plaintiff’s consent to collect personal information.

E. Around April 24, 2014, Defendant D visited the computer network containing personal financial transaction information, etc. at HF K branch, and inquired of the Plaintiff’s “personal customer new customer information without the Plaintiff’s consent to collect personal information.”

F. Around March 26, 2013, Defendant E had access to the computer network containing individual financial transaction information, etc., and inquired, on two occasions, Defendant E, without the Plaintiff’s consent to collect personal information. Around October 7, 2013, Defendant E inquired about the Plaintiff’s received information, insurance account information, representative customer list (LIT), and personal new information. Around January 21, 2014, Defendant E inquired about the Plaintiff’s received information, card information, representative customer list (LIT), and personal new information.

G. From November 1, 2013 to November 201, 2013, Defendant F connected to the computer network containing individual financial transaction information, etc. from Hongcheon-gun M in Hongcheon-do, Gangwon-do, and inquired about 10 cases, including the Plaintiff’s receipt information inquiry, credit information inquiry, card information, etc. on two occasions without the Plaintiff’s personal repair collection consent.

H. Around November 18, 2013, Defendant G access to the computer network containing personal financial transaction information, etc. from the NAF to inquire into 15 cases, including the Plaintiff’s personal information inquiry, credit information inquiry, and insurance account information without the Plaintiff’s consent to collect personal information.

(i) On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff received a civil petition that “the employee of the Financial Supervisory Service inquired of the Plaintiff’s transaction details, etc. without the Plaintiff’s consent,” and withdrawn the said civil petition on or around January 15, 2015, and the prosecutor of the branch office of the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a decision to suspend indictment on May 15, 2018 regarding the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act by Defendant B, C, D, F, and G.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the right to claim damages based on the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and G violation without the Plaintiff’s consent that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental distress due to the Plaintiff’s violation, and Defendant C, D, E, F, G, and Defendant HF, Inc., the employer of the Plaintiff, are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff each money claimed as consolation money.

B. Establishment and scope of the right to claim damages

A personal information manager may collect personal information only when he/she obtains consent from a subject of information, use it only to the extent of the purpose of collection, and shall not use it beyond the scope of collection or provide it to a third party.

According to the above facts, Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and G are recognized to have violated the legal obligation to comply with for the protection of personal information by inquiring into the Plaintiff’s credit card transaction approval details, customer information, etc. as a person who manages personal information for the purpose of business without the Plaintiff’s consent. Accordingly, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the Plaintiff’s infringement of the right to self-determination on personal information. Accordingly, Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and G are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for mental distress suffered by the Plaintiff due to a tort committed against

Furthermore, with respect to the scope of compensation for damages, the following circumstances are considered as a whole: (a) the details and frequency of violations of the Personal Information Protection Act of this case by the Health Team, Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and G; and (b) the Plaintiff’s substantial damage therefrom and whether there is possibility of infringement of the Plaintiff’s additional legal interests; and (c) the amount of consolation money is determined as KRW 2 million by the Defendant B, Defendant C, D, E, F, and G.

따라서 ① 피고 B은 불법행위자로서, 피고 H농협은 피고 B의 사용자로서 공동하여 원고에게 200만 원 및 이에 대하여 원고가 구하는 바에 따라 2014. 9. 24.부터 위 피고들이 이행의무의 존부 및 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당한 이 판결 선고일인 2018. 11. 13.까지는 민법이 정한 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법이 정한 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있고, ② 피고 C는 불법행위자로서, 피고 H농협은 피고 C의 사용자로서 공동하여 원고에게 100만 원 및 이에 대하여 원고가 구하는 바에 따라 2014. 1. 21.부터 위 피고들이 이행의무의 존부 및 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당한 이 판결 선고일인 2018. 11. 13.까지는 민법이 정한 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법이 정한 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있으며, ③ 피고 D은 불법행위자로서, 피고 H농협은 피고 D의 사용자로서 공동하여 원고에게 100만 원 및 이에 대하여 원고가 구하는 바에 따라 2014. 4. 25.부터 위 피고들이 이행의무의 존부 및 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당한 이 판결 선고일인 2018. 11. 13.까지는 민법이 정한 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법이 정한 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있고, ④ 피고 E은 불법행위자로서, 피고 H농협은 피고 E의 사용자로서 공동하여 원고에게 100만 원 및 이에 대하여 원고가 구하는 바에 따라 2015. 1. 1.부터 위 피고들이 이행의무의 존부 및 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당한 이 판결 선고일인 2018. 11. 13.까지는 민법이 정한 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법이 정한 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있으며, ⑤ 피고 F은 불법행위자로서, 피고 I농협은 피고 F의 사용자로서 공동하여 원고에게 100만 원 및 이에 대하여 원고가 구하는 바에 따라 2013. 11. 21.부터 위 피고들이 이행의무의 존부 및 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당한 이 판결 선고일인 2018. 11. 13.까지는 민법이 정한 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법이 정한 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있고, ⑥ 피고 G은 불법행위자로서, 피고 농협은 피고 G의 사용자로서 공동하여 원고에게 100만 원 및 이에 대하여 원고가 구하는 바에 따라 2013. 11. 19.부터 위 피고들이 이행의무의 존부 및 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당한 이 판결 선고일인 2018. 11. 13.까지는 민법이 정한 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법이 정한 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion

On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff, who filed a civil petition with the Financial Supervisory Commission, knew of the damage and the perpetrator. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on June 28, 2018, which was three years after the said lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages expired by prescription pursuant to Article 766(1) of the Civil Act. However, on October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that his personal information was inquired without permission, and was unaware of the identity of the person who inquired about his personal information. It is reasonable to deem that he was aware of the fact that the person who inquired about his personal information was the Defendant B after May 15, 2018. Since it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on June 28, 2018, which was within three years from the said lawsuit, the said assertion by Defendant B was without merit.

2) Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion

Defendant C’s assertion that the Plaintiff continued to manage the Plaintiff’s loan, etc. for several years, thereby obtaining an implied consent to personal information inquiry from the Plaintiff. However, it is difficult to deem that Defendant C consented to the Plaintiff’s personal information inquiry immediately on the sole basis of the fact that Defendant C managed the Plaintiff’s loan, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above assertion by Defendant C

3) Determination as to Defendant D’s assertion

Defendant D asserted that on March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff received a written consent for collection and use of personal information from the Plaintiff and inquired of the Plaintiff’s personal information. However, Defendant D’s allegation is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff prepared the written consent for provision of information.

4) Determination on Defendant E’s assertion

Defendant E claimed that the Plaintiff won a credit card fee on July 11, 2014 and properly received an identification card or a credit card from the Plaintiff and properly inquired of the Plaintiff’s details of domestic credit card transactions. However, the Plaintiff sought compensation for damages on the ground that Defendant E was aware of the Plaintiff’s personal information on March 26, 2013, October 7, 2013, and January 21, 2014. The inquiry of the Plaintiff on July 11, 2014 did not constitute the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, and thus, Defendant E’s above assertion is without merit.

5) Determination as to Defendant F, G, and Nonghyup’s assertion

Defendant F, G, and I inquire about the Plaintiff’s personal information from Defendant F, and G, an employee of Defendant F, who was an employee of Defendant FF, and the Plaintiff’s member to sell a house he purchased, and asserted that there was no mental damage to compensate the Plaintiff for monetary damage or consolation money. However, regardless of the occurrence of property damage, the Plaintiff suffered mental suffering by the infringement of the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination on personal information. Therefore, the above assertion by Defendant F, G, and Nonghyup is without merit.

6) Determination as to Defendant HF’s assertion

Defendant HC obtained the Plaintiff’s implied consent, Defendant C received a written consent to provide information, and Defendant D received a written consent from the Plaintiff, and Defendant E constitutes legitimate job-related inquiry. ② Defendant C, D, and E’s personal information inquiry does not constitute an occupational inquiry, but rather Defendant HC’s liability for damages is not recognized if it does not constitute an occupational inquiry. ③ Defendant HC continued from around 2009 to provide employees with preventive education, such as prohibition of customer information inquiry for non-business purposes, and thus, Defendant C, C, D, and E’s personal information inquiry was not liable.

However, Defendant C, D, and E’s personal information inquiry by Defendant C, D, and E constitutes an act of performing duties or an act related thereto objectively in appearance, and ③ Defendant HF’s personal information inquiry by the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request on February 17, 2012, and Defendant C, C, D, and E were inquired of the Plaintiff’s personal information without the Plaintiff’s consent. Considering that Defendant C, C, D, and E’s personal information was examined by the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request on February 17, 2012, Defendant C, C, D, and E, Defendant HF cannot be deemed to have fulfilled its duty of appointment and supervision solely on the ground that Defendant CC had conducted a customer’s non-exclusive financial transaction inquiry to its employees. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant HFC is without

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.