1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff is an aggregate building D, which is an aggregate building in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

A) A person who is one of the sectional owners in the first floor E, and the Defendant is the representative of the instant commercial building and the president of the promotion committee. 2) The F is one of the sectional owners in the instant commercial building and the Plaintiff’s external lighting, who was accused of violating the Personal Information Protection Act.

B. (1) Around May 20, 2017, around May 24, 2017, and around May 27, 2017, the Defendant sent a file of “the current status of divided owners of D 1st floor” containing personal information of the aforementioned divided owners, including the Plaintiff’s name, address, and F’s name, contact address, address, etc. (2) On April 20, 2018, the Defendant sent a file of “the status of divided owners of D 1st floor” containing personal information of the said divided owners to a G organization or reading room where 179 owners of the instant shopping district were first located. (3) On the criminal facts, the Defendant became final and conclusive as it was, on April 20, 2018, by transmitting “the status of divided owners of D 1st floor” files containing personal information, such as the name, contact address, and address, to the G organization or reading room, and provided it to another person without authority.

C. On the other hand, on June 21, 2018, F filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 3,000,000,000 due to the act of divulging the said personal information by the Incheon District Court Branch of Seocheon-si Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 2018. On June 25, 2018, the said court rendered a decision of performance recommendation ordering F to pay KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant. 2) The certified copy of the said decision of performance recommendation was served on the Defendant on June 28, 2018, and the said decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive on July 13, 2018 due to the Defendant’s failure to file an objection.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap.