개인정보보호법위반
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Defendant A, B, C, and D’s assertion as the head of the management office of the Seo-gu Daejeon apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and Defendant B, C, and D’s act as a member of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee (hereinafter “instant Emergency Countermeasure Committee”) formed with the suspicion of illegal election that was raised by the residents of the apartment of this case regarding the election of the chairperson of the tenant representative council (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and as a member of the resident representative committee, Defendant B, C, and D’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules, by ascertaining whether the voters were actually voting or not, and by ascertaining whether the voters were voting to the chairperson of the tenant representative council (hereinafter “instant election”). As such, the Defendants’ act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.
Defendant
E The assertion that the E-stock company (hereinafter referred to as the “stock company”) has fulfilled its duty of care in supervision and supervision necessary to prevent the Defendant A’s violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.
Judgment
Defendant
The phrase “act which does not contravene social rules” provided for in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, as to the assertion of legitimate acts by A, B, C, and D, refers to an act which can be accepted in light of the overall legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it.
Whether a certain act constitutes a legitimate act that does not contravene the social norms and thus, should be determined individually by examining and reasonably under specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementaryness that there is no other means or method other than the act.
Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300 Delivered on September 26, 2003