In a case where the competent administrative agency ordered Eul, the owner of land, etc., to disclose the names, addresses, details of rights, telephone numbers, etc. excluding resident registration numbers among the list of union members and written resolution by Eul, the case holding that the order to take measures is lawful on the grounds that disclosure of related data does not violate Article 81(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents

In a case where the competent administrative agency ordered Eul, the owner of land, etc., to disclose names, addresses, rights details, telephone numbers, etc. excluding resident registration numbers among the list of association members and written resolution of Eul's request for disclosure of information, the case holding that Article 81 (3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "Urban Improvement Act") is lawful since the current Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents limited to resident registration numbers, information on the implementation of maintenance projects, such as the name, address, telephone number, and written resolution of association members list, needs to be disclosed to the owner of land, etc. who wishes to dissolve the committee or the association's cancellation of designation, or the association members who wish to monitor the activities of the committee, and Article 81 (6) and (7) of the Urban Improvement Act strictly limits the qualifications of the applicant for perusal and reproduction, and the purpose of use of data, such as the name, address, and telephone number of association members including telephone numbers, written resolution, etc.

Article 81(3) and (6) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012); Articles 77(1), 81(3), 81(6), and (7) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents; Article 22(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 506, Aug. 2, 2012); Articles 18(2)2, 19, and 71 subparag. 2 of

The housing reconstruction and improvement project association (Attorney Cho Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Seo-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City

June 18, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On June 25, 2014, the defendant revoked the order to disclose to the plaintiff the name, address, and telephone number of the direction to disclose data related to the improvement project, such as the list of union members-2451, written resolution, etc. of the Urban Regeneration Promotion Group-2451.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff's status

The plaintiff is a housing reconstruction improvement project association that is currently implementing a housing reconstruction project after obtaining authorization for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction project with the area of 194,492 square meters in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju. On June 10, 201, the plaintiff is a housing reconstruction improvement project association designated by the defendant as the project implementer.

B. Nonparty’s claim for disclosure of information against Plaintiff

On May 1, 2014, the Nonparty, the owner of the land in the said project zone, requested the Plaintiff to disclose all of the list of members present at the general meeting of members and written resolution and the list of members except resident registration numbers. On May 12, 2014 and May 29, 2014, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that the Plaintiff disclose all of the written resolution and the remaining parts of the list of members, excluding personal information, such as the name, address, resident registration number, telephone number, etc.

On June 11, 2014, the Nonparty again filed a claim with the Plaintiff for the disclosure of information on the register of partners (including the number of partners, address, name, possession, club, contact telephone number). On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that on June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff would disclose the remainder, excluding personal information, such as the number, name, address, resident registration number, present address, owned club and telephone number.

C. Defendant’s order to take measures against Plaintiff

On June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff rejected the Nonparty’s request for disclosure of information, and the Defendant issued an order to take measures (the part ordering the disclosure of name, address, and telephone number among the above order to the Nonparty’s name, address, right details, telephone number, etc.) to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 77(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3-9, 10, 11, 12, and Gap evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful as it imposes undue infringement on the information management and disposal authority of the subject of information, even if there is an explicit objection against the subject of information regarding personal information, such as name, address, and telephone number.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by adding the purport of the entire argument to the provisions and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the disclosure of relevant materials, such as the name, address, and list of union members including telephone numbers, written resolution, etc. to the Nonparty pursuant to Article 81(6) of the Urban Improvement Act cannot be said to contravene Article 81(3) of the Urban Improvement Act or the purpose of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

1) Article 81(3) of the former Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012); Article 22(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 506, Aug. 2, 2012) provides that “documents and related materials subject to disclosure under Article 81(1) of the Act and Article 70 of the Decree shall be disclosed excluding names, resident registration numbers, and addresses in order to protect personal information.” However, Article 81(3) of the current Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012) provides that “Where the chairperson of the Promotion Committee or project implementer shall disclose information except for disclosure, perusal, reproduction, etc. pursuant to paragraph (1) or (6).”

2) Information on the implementation of an improvement project, such as name, address, telephone number, and written resolution among the list of union members, needs to be disclosed to the owners of land, etc. or union members who wish to monitor the dissolution of the promotion committee and union or cancellation of designation of the improvement zone, etc., and Article 81(6) and (7) of the Urban Improvement Act strictly limits the purpose of use of the qualification for requesting perusal or reproduction and the data

3) Article 18(2)2 of the Personal Information Protection Act provides that “A personal information manager may use the personal information for any purpose other than the intended purpose or provide it to a third party, except where there is a special provision in other Acts, otherwise likely to unfairly infringe on the interests of an owner of information or a third party.” Thus, barring special circumstances, such as that the Nonparty might unfairly infringe on the interests of an association member receiving the name, address, and telephone number provided, the Plaintiff may disclose the list of the association members including the name, address, and telephone number to the Nonparty pursuant to Article 81(3) and (6) of the Urban Improvement Act even without the consent of the association member who is an owner of information.

4) Article 19 of the Personal Information Protection Act provides that “A person who has received personal information from a personal information manager shall not use such information or provide it to a third party for any purpose other than the intended purpose for which he/she has received such personal information, except where he/she has obtained a separate consent from the data manager or where there are special provisions in other Acts.” Article 71 Subparag. 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act provides that “A person who uses personal information or provides it to a third party in violation of Article 19 of the Personal Information Protection Act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Park Jong-chul (Presiding Judge) Support for the settlement of long-standing persons