Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendants’ failure in excess of the amount ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the amended part as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary parts] The first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second to 6th instance court's second instance court's second instance.

“A. Defendant H is a person who is working as the president of the Council for Representatives of Residents from September 29, 2016 to September 28, 2018 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and Defendant I is a person who is working as a representative director of the Council for Representatives of Residents of the instant apartment.

The plaintiffs are the occupants of the apartment of this case.

"Around September 2018," No. 3 of the first instance judgment of the third party 13, "Around September 2018," followed "A around August 2018."

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, the Defendants constitute “the person who managed or managed personal information” under Article 59 of the Personal Information Protection Act as the president or director of the representative meeting of apartment occupants of this case.

Therefore, the defendants are obliged not to divulge the plaintiffs' personal information that they came to know in the course of performing their duties pursuant to Article 59 subparagraph 2 of the Personal Information Protection Act or to provide them for use by others without authority.

Nevertheless, the Defendants used the Plaintiffs’ personal information that they came to know in the course of their duties without permission in criminal appeal and civil litigation against the Plaintiffs’ will, and allowed the investigation agency, a third party, to use it. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to compensate for mental damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to such joint tort.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs seek compensation for consolation money on the premise that the Defendants committed tort by filing a criminal complaint against the Plaintiffs due to the suspicion of defamation. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is a criminal suit against the Defendants.