[1] The method of determining whether an online game service provider breached its duty to verify the real name (real name) information of the user

[2] Where a third party becomes a member of an online game service by stealing another person's name, the case holding that the service provider cannot be deemed as aiding and abetting the theft of name since the service provider fulfilled its duty to verify real name information

[1] In order for online game service provider to be liable for damages caused by illegal acts against the recipients when it permits them to join the game service that it provides as a member, the online service provider obliged to verify the real name information should have neglected to use the game service. Whether the online service provider violated the duty of verification of real name information should be determined by taking into account the development level of relevant Internet technology, characteristics of the game concerned, profit and size of the service provider as the operator, profits and disadvantages to the general users due to the introduction of technical means, economic costs, degree of damage caused by the fraudulent use of name, degree of damage caused by the fraudulent use, relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, etc. in consideration of the fact that the provision of online game service is frequently and in large scale, it is not easy for the service provider to individually grasp the actual status of the user's use of the service and identify whether the service provider is a member or a user by fraudulent use of name.

[2] Where a third party becomes a member of an online game service by stealing another person's name, the case holding that an online service provider cannot be deemed as aiding and abetting a tort by neglecting the act of identity theft, on the ground that the online service provider is obliged to verify the real name information of the applicant in the membership procedure, i.e., the applicant's duty to verify the real name information, but fulfilled its duty to verify the real name information data database and real-time search and comparison with the real name data database at the time of the occurrence of identity theft, and that it has taken appropriate measures

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act; Articles 2(1)3 and 3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. / [2] Articles 750 and 760(3) of the Civil Act; Articles 2(1)3 and 3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

Plaintiff 1 and 10,675 (Law Firm Kalk, Attorneys Park Ba-l et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

UNP Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na62538, 62545 decided August 29, 2008

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the appeal against Defendant Kim Jong-jin

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is revealed that the plaintiffs' claim against defendant Kim-jin was dismissed on the ground that the defendant Kim-jin did not directly approve the membership of the defendant Kim-jin, or that the defendant Kim-jin did not regard it as the principal agent who did not neglect or neglect the identity theft in the course of operating the game service

However, the petition of appeal of this case does not contain the grounds of appeal, and only contains grounds of appeal concerning the decision of the court below that there is no obligation to verify identity in relation to the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant company and the decision of the court below that there is no possibility of predictability and avoidance of identity theft. The statement in the grounds of appeal of this case does not state specific and explicit grounds as to the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant Kim Jong-jin as to what portion of the judgment below is in violation of the law. Thus, it is difficult to view it as legitimate grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal against the defendant company

A. Whether the obligation to verify real name information exists

The lower court determined that there is insufficient evidence to support the Defendant Company’s act of aiding and abetting the identity theft by failing to bear the obligation to verify the identity in the online membership procedure due to terms and conditions of use, statutes, and cooking, and by intentionally or negligently neglecting or neglecting the identity theft of this case, and dismissed all the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendant Company.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, Article 3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. provides that "it shall protect personal information of users and provide sound and safe information and communications services," and Article 7 (1) of the Terms and Conditions of Use of the Defendant Company provides that "where a user requests information from users accurately stating his/her real name and actual information, he/she shall approve an application for use," and Article 7 (2) provides that "the user may not approve an application for use or cancel an approval at the time of subsequent confirmation, if he/she applies for use or fraudulent use of another's name." Article 14 (1) provides that "the user shall not provide false information on the real name of the user at the time of the application for use of the service, and shall not be subject to any protective measure from the company where the user's real name or real name account is registered by the applicant for use of the game service at the time of commencement of the service of this case, and the defendant Company did not verify the real name information of the applicant for use of this case from 2000 .

B. As to whether the duty to verify real name information was violated

In order for the service provider that provides online games to be liable for damages caused by illegal acts against the users when he/she permits them to join the game service that he/she provides as a member, the online service provider obliged to verify real name information should be neglected to use the game service by violating such verification obligation, and whether the online service provider violates the obligation to verify real name information should be determined by considering the fact that the provision of online game service is not easy to individually grasp the actual condition of the user's use of the service from time to time through the Internet and it is not easy to identify whether the user is a member or a user is a member due to the fraudulent name theft from the point of view of the development level of relevant Internet technology, characteristics of the game concerned, commercial character and scale of the service provider as the operator, profits and disadvantages to the general users due to the introduction of technical means, economic expenses therefrom, degree of damage caused by fraudulent name theft, relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, etc.

The following circumstances are acknowledged by the record. It is difficult for Defendant 2 to identify the identity of each user of this case from 00,000 to 200, and to find out various ways such as confirmation of the identity of the user of this case from 200, which were claimed by the plaintiffs at the time of the occurrence of the identity theft; there were significant differences in the level of demand for the security management of personal information between online game users and the users of financial institutions; there was no company which implemented the mobile phone certification system among the game companies at the time of the occurrence of the identity theft; it is the first case where the issue of the identity identity theft is the problem of the number of users of this case; it is not easy for Defendant 2 company to analyze the identity identity registration of each user of this case from 205 to 210,000, and it is not easy for it to identify the identity of each user of this case from 60,000 to 27,000,000 additional measures to prevent access to the game service by way of automatic disclosure of access to the account.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that dismissed the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant company is just in its conclusion, and as seen above, the error of misunderstanding the legal principles of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' ground of appeal cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)