[1] In a case where an employee who manages personal information divulges the collected personal information against the intent of the owner of the relevant information, the standard for determining whether the data subject caused mental damage to compensate for consolation money

[2] The case holding that in case where Gap corporation operating a customer service center by using the personal information of customers who joined the principal oil-related universal card member and deducted customer information of Eul corporation's employees Byung, et al. entrusted with the operation of the above center, etc. and provided the storage media in which customer information was stored to the press-related persons, the case holding that it is difficult to view that mental damage was caused to others, such as consolation money

[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Cheongh, Attorneys Shin Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] LLC Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Yoon Yong-pon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na97152, 97152, 97169, 97176, 97183, 97190 decided June 24, 201

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where an employee who manages personal information disclosed the collected personal information against the intent of the owner of the relevant personal information, the issue of whether the subject of information caused a mental damage to compensate for consolation money shall be determined on an individual basis of a specific case, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the type and nature of the leaked personal information, whether the subject of information could be identified due to the divulgence of the disclosed personal information, whether the leaked personal information could be perused by a third party or not, whether the leaked personal information was perused by a third party or not, to which extent the leaked personal information was spread, whether there was any possibility of additional infringement of legal interests due to the divulgence of the personal information, the status of the personal information manager, and the specific circumstances of the divulgence of the personal information, and what measures were taken to prevent the occurrence and spread of damage caused by the divulgence of the personal information.

The lower court’s factual basis was as follows. ① Nonparty 1’s personal information stored in Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 1’s personal information stored in Nonparty 6’s off-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face (hereinafter “Defendant 1”).

According to these facts, ① The instant personal information was leaked by Nonparty 1 and was delivered or reproduced to the accomplices and Nonparty 5 for the purpose of making a e-mail request via the editing process, and subsequently, was leaked to the media-related persons, etc. for the purpose of mass litigation. However, since the personal information of this case was leaked to the media-related persons, all of the computers, etc. used for the storage media and editing work were confiscated, submitted voluntarily, or destroyed from the related persons of this case, and ② Nonparty 1, etc., who conspired to commit the instant crime, planned the sale of the instant personal information to the attorneys or the attorneys-at-law, it was difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ personal information of this case was leaked or copied in the process of collecting the personal information of this case, and it was difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ personal information of this case was leaked or copied for the purpose of checking the personal information of this case, and it was difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ personal information of this case was leaked or copied for the purpose of using the media-related persons’ personal information of this case.

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that it is difficult to consider that the plaintiffs suffered mental damage due to its stated reasoning, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)