All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4

A. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined as follows: (a) while the Defendant’s development activities under the card accident analysis system (FDS) with E Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E Bank”) pursuant to the development service agreement, the Defendant did not take necessary measures to ensure the safety of personal information despite being entrusted with the management of personal information by E Bank pursuant to Article 26 of the Personal Information Protection Act; (b) the Defendant committed an act of divulging the E Bank’s card customer information with respect to the performance of the FDS development service; and (c) the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, as the employer, had paid due attention to the appointment and supervision of F, or had paid due attention to the occurrence of the damage caused by the leakage of personal card information; and (d) the Defendant, in collaboration with E Bank, is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damage caused by the leakage of personal information.

B. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no ground for appeal as stipulated by the Trial of Small Claims Act, such as making a decision contrary to the Supreme Court precedents on the relationship of office performance, causation with reasons for exemption, and the entrustment relationship of personal information management.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 5

A. In a case where the personal information collected by a person who manages the personal information was leaked against the intent of the subject of information, it is revealed whether the subject of information caused a mental damage to compensate for consolation money, what kind and nature of the leaked personal information, whether there was a possibility of identifying the subject of information due to the divulgence of personal information, whether a third party was perused, or whether a third party was perused.