208 Gaz. 407653 Compensation (as stated)

As shown in the attached list of plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs (Law Firm 00)

[Defendant-Appellee]

Co., Ltd. 00

Seocho-gu Seoul

Representative Director Professor 00

Attorney Park 00, Lee 00

July 14, 2010

August 11, 2010

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant, each of the 300,000 won to the plaintiffs and its judgment from July 23, 2008 to the date of this judgment.

shall pay 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company operating "00", which is an Internet portal site, providing the Internet e-mail service in the name of "00" to subscribers.

B. The Plaintiffs are users of 00 services that join 00 members and establish an e-mail account.

C. On July 22, 2008, the Defendant developed a program that adds a function to show one’s last log, if the service user connects 00 to another (hereinafter “the instant program”).

15:10 He distributed around 10 users.

D. However, if users who access 00 servers at the same time request a certain service due to the error in the above program (hereinafter referred to as "one-person"), the e-mail information of the user who requested the service at the last time was at the same time exposed to other users (hereinafter referred to as "accident in this case").

E. At around 15:25 on the same day, the Defendant came to know of the above situation with the report of users, from around 15: 55 to around 00, and prevented all of 00 services at around 16:10, and distributed programs (i.e., ‘one roller white program’) to restore to its original state, and then provided 0 services from around 00: 02 to 00 again.

F. According to the results of analysis of the log records at the time of the instant accident, it was confirmed that there was a maximum of 307 users of the instant accident, and a maximum of 141 users of the files attached to one’s emails, who downloaded by another, due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 7, 10, and 11 (including each number), the fact-finding results with respect to the Korea Communications Commission of this Court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

Although the Defendant neglected to take necessary measures to ensure safety, such as collecting personal information from users, protecting the rights and interests of members as managers, building a security system to prevent leakage of personal information, etc., the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obliged to pay consolation money to the Plaintiffs on the ground that the Plaintiffs’ e-mail and attached files are exposed, deleted, or downloaded to many unspecified persons, and that the secondary damage would occur due to the abuse of such information.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the reasons for the instant accident and the purport of the entire pleadings with respect to the testimony of the witness Nos. 1, 10, 16 and 100, the same facts are recognized as 00.

1) In the case of a normal program, if a user requests a certain page on the 00 server, the server’s program records the user’s information on the server’s note upon the user’s request, and send the data to 00 users that verify the user’s email information by returning the information recorded on the server’s note.

2) The instant accident occurred in the process of recording A’s information on A’s server’s server’s server’s server’s server’s server’s server’s server’s server’s server’s server’s server’s server’s short time, and almost at the same time, and recording B’s information. The program’s server’s information value added to B’s information value and sent B’s requested data to both A and B (in this case, B refers to only return of information). Accordingly, the instant accident occurred (in this case, B sees the normal data it requested). Thus, if users who access 00 server at the same time request information to the server, the first user’s information that was requested later could not be disclosed to the other party’s e-mail if the user did not access the server at the time of the accident, or if the other party’s e-mail information was deemed to have been disclosed to the other party.

B. Whether or not the plaintiffs suffered damages (the plaintiffs' respective damages claimed are not specific or unclear, so the following grounds are together determined by gathering the plaintiffs' claims).

In light of the following circumstances, although the plaintiffs asserted that losses were incurred as stated in the separate sheet, the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 11, and 16 and the testimony in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 11, and 16 and the whole purport of the arguments in the testimony in 00, each fact inquiry into the Korea Communications Commission and the Department of University Information and Communications Technology in this court is insufficient to acknowledge the facts alleged by the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to support them. (1) The plaintiffs 500, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 000, 00, 000, 00, 00, 000, 00, 00, 100, 200, 100,

2) Although there is no possibility that a person other than the above plaintiffs' e-mail server did not have access to the above e-mail at the time of the accident in light of the following facts: (a) there is no evidence that there was a possibility that a person other than the above plaintiffs' e-mail server could have access to e-mail at the time of the accident; (b) there was no possibility that the other person did not have access to the above e-mail at the time of the accident in light of the plaintiffs' assertion, claiming that the e-mail information of the other person was provided at the time of the accident in this case; (c) there was no possibility that the other person did not have access to the above e-mail at the time of the accident; (d) there was no possibility that the other person did not have access to the above e-mail at the time of the accident in addition to the allegations by the above plaintiffs; and (e) there was no possibility that the other person did not have access to the above e-mail server.

4) According to the plaintiffs' arching and web log-based records, the plaintiffs do not constitute a user who downloads the files attached to his/her emails by another person or by another person.

5) After the instant accident, the Defendant restored all deleted mail work at the request of users.

C. Whether the defendant violated his duty of care

It is clear that the defendant has a duty of due care to provide smooth services to customers while doing business activities, and to deal with the private information of users, such as e-mail, and to make every effort to prevent information from being leaked to others. However, it is recognized in full view of the statements in the items in subparagraphs 1 through 10, 12 through 16 and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony in the above Chapter 00.

In light of the following circumstances, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant violated the duty of care in the process of producing and distributing programs and the process of dealing with the accident after the fact-finding on Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 submitted by the plaintiffs alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. The accident of this case occurred in the course of running the previous program with the purpose of improving the security function of 00 services for the purpose of improving the security function of 00 services for the purpose of providing most users with free use (Provided, That the plaintiff Kim 00 and Park Park 00 were subscribed to the Frithm, which is an additional service that provides an unlimited capacity in lieu of paying a certain amount of user fee, and has not been used as an exclusive customer center, etc.).

2) The Defendant: (a) conducted a quality control test (one-day QA test) from July 10, 2008 to July 14, 2008 before distributing the instant program in preparation for the error of the program; and (b) viewed the Defendant’s transfer of the instant program against the Defendant’s former workers during the day from July 15, 2008 to July 15, 2008, but did not have any obstacle.

3) The Defendant began to distribute the instant program from around 10:10 to the date of the instant accident, which was deemed appropriate to set a time period during which prompt detection and to minimize damage in the event of program errors.

4) The Defendant completely cut off 00 services within one hour after the occurrence of the instant accident, prevented the leakage of additional information, and resumed services by completing restoration to the original state within one hour thereafter.

5) After the Defendant’s management of the accident, the Defendant notified users of the occurrence of the accident, notified users of the occurrence of the accident, and prevented apology and recurrence. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant took compensation measures, such as providing users who visited the server 00, providing additional e-mail capacity for five years, or providing premium mail services for five years, or extending the premium mail service period for five years.

6) The instant accident is based on the butane generated in the program essentially newly developed, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant neglected the protection of personal information by causing serious defects in the personal information protection system or neglecting it in the course of pursuing business interests.

7) Today, the transmission and use of information through the Internet are also essential to the general public, and there is a high demand for customers who wish to develop new programs or to improve the performance of existing programs to use them more conveniently and safely, whereas it is almost impossible to completely exclude the possibility of the occurrence in the course of program development in light of the present technological level and economic feasibility.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the accident of this case caused damage to the plaintiffs in money, or that there was a violation of duty of care to the defendant, and therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed for each reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Seo 00

A person shall be appointed.