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

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 and 2:

A. The Plaintiff entered into a mobile phone use contract with the Defendant, and uses the mobile phone (number 2) opened in the name of the Plaintiff, hereinafter “instant mobile phone”). The Defendant is a telecommunications business operator under the Telecommunications Business Act.

B. As to the terms and conditions of mobile phone use by Defendant Company, regarding the use of the call number verification service, perusal and delivery of the call details are stipulated as follows:

- - Future -

Article 13 (Use of Call Number Confirmation Service) (1) In order to protect a receiver from verbal abuse, intimidation, harassment, etc. by telephone, a company may inform the receiver of the caller's telephone number, etc. in cases where the receiver requests as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and where the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes prescribe in the special telephone number service.

Article 26 (Perusal and Delivery of Details of Currencys) (1) The Company shall issue a request for perusal or reproduction of the details of the call from a customer or a person delegated to him/her: Provided, That the details of the telephone shall be provided only for the last six months from the date of request, which shall be provided only for the last six months from the date of request, which shall be provided at the time of request of the applicant, and part of the other party number shall be omitted to protect customer information: Provided, That the provision of details of the international telephone of Korea

C. On October 27, 2004, around 15:21, 2004, Defendant Company issued domestic telephone details (from August 1, 2004 to October 27, 2004) on the instant mobile phone and provided them to investigation agencies.

D. On February 2009, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant Company for “if the Plaintiff’s domestic currency content was issued at the request of the investigative agency, whether it was made by the investigative agency’s request for the provision of communication confirmation data, and if it was made by such written request, a copy of the request for the provision of communication confirmation data by the investigative agency.” However, the Defendant Company rejected the request on the ground that “the data requested by the Plaintiff are in violation of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, etc. if the Defendant

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to allow the Plaintiff to peruse and copy the documents proving the approval of the chief prosecutor of the competent local prosecutor's office, as the Plaintiff’s principal of the mobile phone of this case, since it is necessary to verify whether the communication confirmation data has been issued to the investigative agency through due procedures. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to allow the Plaintiff to peruse and copy the documents attesting to the provision of communication confirmation data around October 2004.

B. Determination

(1) Relevant statutes

[Protection of Communications Secrets]

Article 2 (Definitions)

11. The term "communication confirmation data" means data on the records of telecommunications falling under any of the following items:

(a) The date of telecommunications of subscribers;

(b) Starting and ending hours of telecommunications;

(c) Insured number of the other party, such as the discovery and arrival communications number;

(d) The frequency of use;

(e) The computer communications or Internet log-record data on facts that the users of computer communications or Internet have utilized the telecommunications services;

(f) The data on tracing a location of information communications apparatus connecting to the information communications networks;

(g) Data on tracing a location of information communications apparatus connected to a computer network;

Article 13 (Procedures for Provision of Communication Confirmation Data for Criminal Investigations)

(1) Where necessary for investigation or the execution of punishment, a prosecutor or judicial police officer may request a telecommunications business operator under the Telecommunications Business Act (hereinafter referred to as "telecommunications business operator") to peruse or submit data verifying the confirmation of communications (hereinafter referred to as "data for providing communication confirmation").

(2) Where requesting the provision of communication confirmation data under the provisions of paragraph (1), the permission for the competent district court (including a general military court; hereinafter the same shall apply) or the branch court shall be obtained in writing recording a reason for such request, relation with the relevant insured and the scope of necessary data: Provided, That where there is an urgent reason for which permission for the provision of communication confirmation data cannot be obtained, the request for the provision of communication confirmation data shall be

(7) A telecommunications business operator shall, when he/she provides data verifying communications with a prosecutor, judicial police officer or the head of an intelligence and investigative agency, report the current status of provision of data, etc. to the Korea Communications Commission twice a year, and keep a ledger stating necessary matters, such as the provision of relevant data verifying communications and a written request for provision of data

Article 13-3 (Notification of Provision of Communication Confirmation Data for Criminal Investigations)

(1) Where a public prosecution has been instituted or a disposition not to institute a public prosecution or institute for the case for which the provision of communication confirmation data has been received under Article 13 (excluding a decision on the suspension of indictment), the fact that the provision of communication confirmation data has been received and the requesting agency for provision of communication confirmation data and the period thereof shall be notified in writing within 30 days

Article 13-5 (Confidentiality and Restriction on Use of Data)

The provisions of Articles 11 and 12 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provision of communication confirmation data under the provisions of Article 13 and the obligation for confidentiality following the provision of communication confirmation data under the provisions of Article 13-4 and the restrictions on the use of communication confirmation data, respectively.

Article 11 (Confidentiality)

(1) No public official or any former public official who has participated in permission, implementation and notification of communication-restricting measures and preparation of various documents shall disclose or divulge matters concerning communication-restricting measures he/she has learned in the course of performing his/her duties

(2) Any employee or any former employee of any communications agency shall be prohibited from disclosing or divulging matters concerning the communication-restricting measures.

(3) Any person other than those provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be prohibited from disclosing or divulging what he/she has learned in the course of the communication-restricting measures except that his/her knowledge is used according to the provisions of this Act.

(2) Determination as to whether the Plaintiff has the right to request perusal and copy of the documents listed in the attached list to the Defendant

(A) The register of communication confirmation data among the documents in the attached list in which the Plaintiff claimed perusal and reproduction to the Defendant is a document that the Defendant should prepare and keep pursuant to Article 13(7) of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act. The written request for the provision of communication confirmation data and the document that proves approval of the chief prosecutor of the competent district public prosecutor’s office is an investigation-related document prepared and issued by the investigative agency to the Defendant for the provision of communication confirmation data under Article 13(1)

(B) According to the terms and conditions of mobile phones used by the Defendant, applicable to the contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for mobile phone calls, the Plaintiff’s right to demand disclosure to the Defendant company, and (1) the right to use the mobile phone number service (Article 13 of the terms and conditions), and (2) the right to demand perusal and delivery of the details of the call (Article 26 of the terms and conditions). In light of the provisions and purport of the above terms and conditions, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s claim for perusal and copying of the documents listed in the separate sheet prepared and kept by the Protection of Communications Secrets Act does not constitute a provision that guarantees the Defendant’s right to demand perusal and copying of the documents listed in the separate sheet.

(C) Even according to the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, where a public prosecution was instituted or a disposition not to institute a public prosecution or institute a prosecution for a case for which the communication confirmation data was provided under Article 13 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act (excluding the decision of the suspension of a public prosecution), the duty of notification is imposed upon the investigative agency by stipulating that “the fact of receiving the communication confirmation data and the request agency for provision of the data and the period thereof shall be notified in writing within 30 days from the date of the disposition,” and there is no provision that the Defendant may request the Plaintiff to peruse and copy the documents listed in the separate sheet. Furthermore, according to Articles 13-5 and 11 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, an employee or a person who was involved in the provision of the communication confirmation data has a duty not to disclose or divulge matters concerning the provision of the communication confirmation data to the public.

(D) Therefore, there is no legal basis to recognize the right of the Plaintiff to request the Defendant to peruse and copy the documents listed in the attached list. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim based on this premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-ro (Presiding Judge)