[1] The meaning of "personal credit information" under Article 15 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act

[2] The case holding that an employee of a credit card company's act of collecting personal credit information does not constitute an act of collecting personal credit information on the sole basis of receiving the compact disks in which the Internet company's name, resident registration number, etc. are recorded from the agent of credit card recruitment to attract its members

[3] Whether where a credit information provider/user provides personal credit information to a credit information business operator, etc. differently from the purpose or purpose specified in the written consent, whether it constitutes a case of providing personal credit information without a written consent (affirmative)

[4] The case holding that where an employee of a credit card company provided personal credit information to a credit card recruitment agency for the purpose not specified in the letter of consent to the provision and utilization of personal credit information or for the purpose thereof, the case holding that the credit information is provided to the credit information dealers

[5] The meaning of the relation of business, which is the requirement for punishing a corporation under the joint penal provisions of Article 34 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act

[6] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that recognized liability of a credit card company in accordance with the Act on the Use and Protection of Credit Information, in case where an employee in charge of credit card solicitation business in a credit card company provides an agency with the personal credit information of credit card merchant's business owner in recruiting credit card members through the agency

[1] According to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act, Article 2 (1) 1 through 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, "personal credit information" under Article 15 of the same Act refers to information that requires identification information, credit transaction information, credit rating, credit ability information, public record information, credit rating, credit rating, etc. of the other party in commercial transactions, such as financial transactions, and "personal name, address, resident registration number (foreign registration number or passport number in the case of a foreigner), gender, nationality, occupation, etc., which can identify a specific owner of credit information, and the so-called "identification information" refers to personal credit information only when combined with the remaining credit information.

[2] The case holding that employee of a credit card company's act of collecting personal credit information does not constitute the act of collecting personal credit information on the sole basis of receiving the compact disks in which the Internet company's name, resident registration number, etc. are recorded from the agent of credit card recruitment to attract its members

[3] In full view of Article 23 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 20 of the Credit Information Supervisory Commission Regulations, and Article 20 and Article 7 of the same Act, where a credit information provider/user intends to provide "personal credit information" under Article 23 of the same Act to credit information dealers, etc., it shall obtain written consent specifying the content, object of provision, purpose of use or purpose of provision, and if personal credit information is provided differently from the content, object of provision, purpose or purpose of use of credit information specified in a written consent, it is the case where the personal

[4] The case holding that where an employee of a credit card company provides personal credit information to a credit card recruitment agency for the purpose not specified in the letter of consent to the provision and utilization of personal credit information, or for the purpose thereof, it constitutes the case of providing personal credit information to the credit information dealers

[5] In order to regard the "business of a corporation", which is a requirement for punishing a corporation under Article 34 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act, as "business of a corporation", there is an objective act that can be objectively acknowledged as the business of a corporation, and subjectively, an act that an employee, etc. has an intention to act for the business of a corporation.

[6] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that recognized liability of a credit card company in accordance with the joint penal provisions of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act in case where an employee in charge of credit card solicitation business in a credit card company provides an agency with the personal credit information of credit card merchant's operator in recruiting credit card members through the agency

[1] Articles 2 subparagraph 1 and 15 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act, Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act, Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act / [2] Articles 15 and 32 (2) 4 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act / [3] Articles 23 and 32 (2) 6 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act / [4] Articles 23 and 32 (2) 6 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act / [5] Article 34 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act / [6] Article 34 of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act

[5] Supreme Court Decision 80Do1591 delivered on March 22, 1983 (Gong1983, 764) Supreme Court Decision 96Do2699 delivered on February 14, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 847)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 2 and one other and the prosecutor

Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Dog Chang-soo et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2003No3043 delivered on February 14, 2004

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the prosecutor's grounds of appeal

According to Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Credit Information Use and Protection Act, Article 2(1)1 through 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, “personal credit information” under Article 15 of the same Act refers to information necessary to determine identification information, credit transaction information, credit rating, credit ability information, public record information, credit rating, credit rating, etc. on commercial transactions, such as financial transactions, and “personal name, address, resident registration number (foreign registration number or passport number), gender, nationality, occupation, etc., which can identify a specific owner of credit information” refers to personal credit information only in combination with the remaining credit information.

According to the records, in order to attract (name omitted) card members, Defendant 2, who did not obtain (name omitted) card, recommended to issue (name omitted) card to a person with good credit rating among those who did not obtain the (name omitted) card, obtained the compact disc containing the name and resident registration number of the Internet company members from Defendant 1, and then searched the "TURY", which is the electronic data of the credit information inquiry of Defendant 3 company, and then searched the "TURY", which is the electronic data of the credit information inquiry of Defendant 3 company, to find out whether the Internet company's individual was issued the (name omitted), whether the credit card fee was overdue, and whether the credit card fee was overdue.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if Defendant 2 received from Defendant 1 the compact disc containing the identity information of the Internet company members, this alone does not constitute an act of collecting personal credit information. In this case where there is no evidence that the content of the above computerized data is inaccurate, it is difficult to view that the content of the computerized data of Defendant 3 company is difficult to be the collection or investigation of credit information which is doubtful about whether the content is true, and unless there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the court below acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in relation to the collection or investigation of uncertain personal credit information, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3

In full view of Article 23 of the Credit Information Use and Protection Act, Article 12 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 20 of the Credit Information Supervisory Commission Regulations, and Article 7 of the same Act, where a credit information provider/user intends to provide a credit information business operator, etc. with a “personal credit information” under Article 23 of the same Act, the credit information provider/user shall obtain a written consent specifying the content, subject, purpose or purpose of the provision, and if the credit information provider/user provided a personal credit information differently from the content, subject, purpose or purpose of the credit information specified in the written consent, it constitutes a case where the personal

Although Defendant 3’s “Written Consent to Provision and Use of Personal Credit Information” of “Written Consent to Provision of Personal Credit Information” is limited to the use and purpose of the provision of personal credit information “to determine personal credit information or to use it as policy data by public institutions,” according to the evidence employed by the lower court, Defendant 2 can be recognized as having provided personal credit information for the purpose or purpose not specified in the written consent by transferring personal credit information to Defendant 1 in order to recruit (credit card name omitted) card members. In full view of these facts and the legal principles as seen earlier, this constitutes a case where personal credit information is provided to credit information dealers, etc. without a written consent, and according to the records, there is no evidence to deem that Defendant 3 obtained written consent as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. Accordingly, the lower court’s conviction of this part of the facts charged is justifiable, and there is no illegality in finding any error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. As to Defendant 3’s ground of appeal

Article 34 of the Credit Information Use and Protection Act provides that "the business of a corporation" shall be deemed to have been performed with respect to the business of a corporation objectively, there is an act that can be objectively recognized as being conducted for the business of the corporation, and subjectively, an employee, etc. shall have an intention to act for the business of the corporation (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Do1591, Mar. 22, 1983; 96Do2699, Feb. 14, 197, etc.).

According to the evidence duly employed by the court below, Defendant 2, as a sales promotion team agent of Defendant 3 who is engaged in issuing and managing credit cards, was in charge of issuing, inviting, and managing credit cards, was in charge of external services, or was affected by the results of inviting members of the agency when receiving benefits as annual salary system; Defendant 3, upon entering into a contract with the non-indicted corporation whose representative director is the defendant 1 for the recruitment of credit card members for a period of August 1, 2002, under which the contract was entered into with the non-indicted corporation whose representative director for the recruitment of credit card members to pay the fee of KRW 13,000 - 25,000 per Chapter 1, and Defendant 2, upon receiving a request from Defendant 1 to provide the personal credit information of the card merchant's operator, was related to Defendant 2, who was in charge of obtaining the personal credit information of the card merchant's operator's credit information (name omitted) for the purpose of collecting the personal credit information of the (name omitted) card merchant's personal credit information.

In addition to these facts, Defendant 2’s provision of the personal credit information of the operator of the card merchant (name omitted) to Defendant 1 is an act to invite credit card holders of Defendant 3, a credit card company, as an act for the purpose of soliciting credit card holders of Defendant 3, and it is evident that Defendant 2 had an intention to provide personal credit information for the business of soliciting credit card holders. Thus, Defendant 2’s above act should be recognized as business relations with Defendant 3. Therefore, the lower court’s recognition of Defendant 3’s liability in accordance with the joint penal provisions is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to business relations or in the violation

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)