2012Da45528 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

As shown in the attached list of plaintiffs.

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Representative of Law ○○○○

Omission of Litigation Performers

Seoul High Court Decision 2011412547 Decided May 3, 2012

September 13, 2012

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 10 of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness. The State shall have the duty to confirm and guarantee the fundamental human rights of individuals." Article 17 of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall not be infringed on the privacy and freedom of private life." These provisions purport not only to passive rights that infringe upon individuals' private life activities or are not disclosed without permission, but also to actively control their own information in today's highly automated society. Accordingly, military information institutions are obliged to obtain intelligence collection related to the military, investigate crimes under the jurisdiction of a specific military court, etc. for the purpose of monitoring and grasping the trend of ordinary cases against civilians, and to collect and manage information on their activities and privacy, including activities relating to assembly and association with the military, or information on privacy, which is collected and managed in secret interest by means of happiness, utilization of network, search, etc., which is protected by the Constitution, and constitutes a tort against the fundamental rights of individuals guaranteed by the Constitution (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da2784, Apr. 27, 1998).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted by the court below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the adopted evidence. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the inspection of this case, such as monitoring and tracking the trend of the plaintiffs' private activities by means of violence, camping and photographing, gathering private information including residence, time of access, etc., is unlawful as it deviates from the scope of the plaintiffs' private activities, and thus infringing the plaintiffs' privacy and freedom of privacy, and thus, it is a military investigation agency under the jurisdiction of the military court, such as where the civilian's personal information is necessary for military security or intelligence, and it is prohibited from collecting or investigating intelligence against the civilian unless there are special circumstances, such as where the civilian's personal information is also a right to investigate. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the investigation of this case, such as monitoring and tracking the situation of the plaintiffs' private activities by the military security headquarters investigators, and collecting private information, is legitimate in the process of securing the plaintiffs' personal information and the data collected by the National Police Agency investigator.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, on the ground that there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and the free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the limit of investigation and collection of information, military relevance of investigation, and the legal principles on liability for damages arising from infringement on the freedom of privacy, etc.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Shin Young-chul

Justices Kim Yong-deok