1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 6, 2017, the Plaintiff completed a pre-contract to use “Cho” for 12 days from October 4, 2017 to October 5, 2017, among the accommodation facilities of B arboretums operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Arboretums”).

B. On September 22, 2019, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu asked the Defendant Arboretums that other customers who agreed to engage in two-three-day accommodations of the Defendant Arboretums by telephone on September 22, 2019 (gold) to leave the Defendant Arboretums at 12 p.m. on the following day after 12 p.m. and then re-enter the Defendant Arboretums at 15 p.m.

C. On September 25, 2017, Defendant Arboretums called the Plaintiff on September 25, 2017 and on September 17:53 and 17:56 two occasions, using his personal portable phones, and asked the Plaintiff whether the intended guest rooms could be changed upon contact with the Plaintiff.

The defendant arboretum's person in charge of the defendant arboretum maintained the guest room reserved by the plaintiff without any particular expression of intent.

On September 28, 2017, the Plaintiff revoked the reservation for accommodation facilities of Defendant Arboretums.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The demand for the change of guest room for the purpose of which the public official in charge of the defendant arboretum claimed by the plaintiff does not fall under the scope of the purpose of collecting personal information.

It is illegal for the defendant arboretum working-level to force the change of guest room by phoneing to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's refusal of change of guest room is likely to cause disadvantages or damage to the plaintiff, and eventually revoked the reservation, and suffered mental and economic damage by finding out other accommodation facilities rapidly.

In light of the content of the principle of personal information protection under Article 3 of the Personal Information Protection Act, the use of personal information for the purpose other than the purpose of collection is unlawful. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for mental damage suffered by the plaintiff under Articles 39 through 39-2

3. Determination A.