Change of Resident Registration Number Case

[27-2(B) KCCR 480, 2013Hun-Ba68, 2014Hun-Ma449 (consolidated), December 23, 2015]

In this case, the Constitutional Court held that Article 7 of the Resident Registration Act which does not provide a clause concerning the changing of the resident registration number is incompatible with theConstitution as it infringes on the right to informational self-determination.The Court ordered the provision to be in force until the legislature enacts amendment by December 31, 2017.

Background of the Case

(1) The petitioners filed a request to the heads of their respective local governments to change the resident registration number (“Number”) as their Numbers were subject to the illegal leak of personal data. However, their requests were rejected on the ground that the changing of the Number by reason of the illegal leak of the Number is not permitted under the then-current Resident Registration Act (“Act”).

(2) The petitioners of the first case (2013Hun-Ba68) filed a constitutional complaint in this case as their petition for constitutional review of Article 7 Section 3 and 4 of the Act, filed while the action seeking cancellation of the disposition rejecting the request to change the Number was pending, was rejected. The petitioners in the second case (2014Hun-Ma449) filed a constitutional complaint in this case claiming that Article 7 Section 3 and 4 of the Act, Article 7 Section 4 and Article 8 Section 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act infringe on the petitioners’ fundamental rights as these provisions do not stipulate a procedure for changing the Number when the Number is exposed by an illegal leak.

Subject Matter of Review

The subject matter of review in this case is whether Article 7 of the Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8422 on May 11, 2007) is in violation of the Constitution. The provision at issue read as follows.

Provision at Issue

Resident Registration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8422 on May 11, 2007)

Article 7 (Preparation of Resident Registration Record Cards)

(1) The head of each Si/Gun/Gu shall prepare, keep, manage, and preserve resident registration record cards for each individual and for each household (hereinafter referred to as “resident registration record cards”) along with an index book for resident registration record cards by household using an electronic information processing system (hereinafter referred to as the “computation system”) to keep records of the registration of residents.

(2) The resident registration record card for an individual shall contain and keep the records of the individual comprehensively, while the resident registration record card for a household shall integrate and keep the records of the household.

(3) The head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu shall issue a registered identification number (hereinafter referred to as “resident identification number”) to each resident.

(4) Necessary matters for the forms of resident registration record card and the index book for the resident registration record cards by household, the methods of keeping, managing, and preserving the records of such forms, and the method of issuing the resident identification numbers shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Summary of the Decision

1. Right to Informational Self-Determination

The purpose of the resident registration number system which aims to promote convenience of the resident life and appropriate handling of administrative affairs is legitimate. Issuing the Number to each resident and not allowing to change the Number may be an appropriate means to achieve such legislative purpose.

However, the Number now functions as the standard identification number by going further than merely playing a role of the personal identification number. As a result, the Number is used as ultimate key data integrating personal information. This makes integrated management of individuals more risky, and carries danger of causing individuals to be subject to the nation’s management in all areas eventually. This calls for greater necessity for regulating use and management of the Number. Furthermore, since various types of personal information is exposed to limitless collection, disclosure and use at the hands of others in contemporary society, if the Number, functioning as the key data, is illegally leaked or abused, the individual’s right to privacy, life, body and property may likely be prone to intrusion. The evils resulting from the leak or abuse are in fact being materialized as the Numbers subjected to exposure are indeed being misused in criminal activities. Given such reality, an absolute prohibition on the changing of the Number without consideration of the anticipated harm, that may possibly result from exposure or abuse of the Number in and of itself, may become an excessive infringement of one’s rights to informational self-determination.

Even if the government takes measures to prevent exposure and abuse of the Number and regulates handling of the Number by legislations such as the Personal Information Protection Act, the measures are incapable of completely eliminating circumstances where handling, collection, and use of the Number still occur and do not provide specific

solutions against harm resulting from the exposure which already occurred. Hence, the measures hardly afford sufficient protection for the people’s right to informational self-determination.

Meanwhile, if the system which links the newly issued Number with the previous one is established and used, the system will support personal identification of a person who changed the Number, and whether the person is the same person who used the previous Number can be verified under the system as well. Moreover, if the legislature establishes the procedure under which a person wishing to change the Number must fulfill certain requirements set by the legislature and the change of Number must be reviewed by a qualified institution equipped with objectivity and integrity, it will help cutting off attempts to abuse the procedure for change of the Number and lessening social chaos.

Accordingly, the provision at issue which fails to provide a clause allowing change of the Number violates the rule against excessive restriction and infringes on the petitioners’ right to informational self-determination.

2.Declaration of Nonconformity to Constitution and Temporary Applicationof the Provision

The unconstitutional aspect of the provision at issue lies in the legislative omission that failed to provide a clause on change of the Number. If we simply rule that the provision at issue is unconstitutional on the ground of the legislative omission, the provision providing basis for the resident registration number system itself will be removed. This will lead to an unacceptable state of vacuum in law. As the legislatures have a broad legislative discretion in forming the system for the changing of the Number, we declare that the provision at issue does is incompatible with the Constitution and order the provision at issue to be in force until the legislature enacts amendment by December 31, 2017.

Summary of Dissenting Opinion by One Justice

In fact, only Section 4 of Article 7 of the Act which provides for the method of issuing the Number is most relevant to the pseudo legislative omission, not the entire Article 7 of the Act prescribing the system of resident registration number and resident registration record cards. Thus, the provision at issue to be subject to this Court’s review must be limited to Section 4 of Article 7. Any problems concerning the changing of the Number arise after the Number is issued. The unconstitutionality of the system of resident registration number and resident registration record cards is irrelevant to such problems occurring after the Number is issued.

Therefore, I believe the system of resident registration number and resident registration record cards in and of itself do not entail unconstitutional aspects discussed by the majority opinion, and thus the remaining sections of Article 7 are constitutional and Section 4 only must be subject to this Court’s review and declared incompatible with the Constitution.

Summary of Dissenting Opinion by Two Justices

The purpose of the resident registration number system is to promote convenience of the resident life and appropriate handling of administrative affairs. Allowing the changing of the Number will undermine personal identification function of the Number, and this will eventually impede achievement of such purpose and raise concerns for abuse of the Number for ill purposes (e.g., concealment of crime, tax evasion, evasion of debt, or identification laundering). Also, accepting every request for change of the Number, which is likely to be filed in great volume, may cause social turmoil.

Yet, the legislature, by legislating laws such as the Personal Information Protection Act, has already implemented measures to prevent exposure or abuse of the Number in advance, impose countermeasures,

and provide remedies for damages suffered by the exposure or abuse. As administrative affairs in modern society are expanding to the area that aims protection of the people’s fundamental rights, appropriate and efficient handling of administrative affairs utilizing the resident registration number system is important in protecting the people’s fundamental rights.

In consideration of these facts, it is our opinion that the provision at issue that does not provide a clause for the changing of the Number does not violate the rule against excessive restriction and thus does not infringe on one’s right to informational self-determination.