[1] Whether a transaction involving insurance premiums is subject to the protection of confidentiality under Article 4(1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (negative)

[2] Where an employee of an insurance company provides another person with an inquiry about the details of the insurance transaction and payment without a policyholder's request or consent, the case denying the establishment of a violation of Article 4 (1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality

[1] Article 4(1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (amended by Act No. 7886 of Mar. 24, 2006) prohibits a financial institution from providing, divulging, and providing information or data on the details of financial transactions, and Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the same Act defines “financial transactions” as “revenue (import), trading, repurchase, intermediary, discount, issuance, redemption, refund, trust, registration, or exchange of financial assets, or payment of interest, discount, or dividends on behalf of the financial institution, or transactions, etc. for other financial assets on behalf of the financial institution.” In subparagraph 2 of the same Article, the term “financial assets” is defined as “deposits, installment savings, installments, deposits, deposits, trust assets, trust assets, stocks, beneficiary certificates, contribution shares, bills, checks, debt certificates, etc., which are handled by financial institutions.” Therefore, transactions subject to insurance premiums cannot be deemed as transactions related to financial assets, and thus, they are not subject to the protection of confidentiality under Article 4(1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality.

[2] Where an employee of an insurance company provides another person with a written inquiry about the details of insurance transaction and payment without a policyholder's request or consent, the case denying the establishment of a violation of Article 4 (1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (amended by Act No. 7886 of March 24, 2006)

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 2, subparagraph 3, and Article 4 (1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (amended by Act No. 7886 of March 24, 2006) / [2] Articles 4 (1) and 6 of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (amended by Act No. 7886 of March 24, 2006)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Law Firm Busan, Attorney above-ok

Busan District Court Decision 2008No1505 Decided August 14, 2008

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 4(1) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (amended by Act No. 7886 of Mar. 24, 2006; hereinafter “former Real Name Act”) prohibits a financial institution from demanding the provision, disclosure, and provision of information or data on the details of financial transactions (hereinafter “transaction information, etc.”) under Article 4(1) of the same Act. Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the same Act provides that a financial institution shall import (import), buy and sell, repurchase, refund, refund, entrust, register, exchange financial assets, pay interest, discounted amount, or pay discounted amount of the financial assets on behalf of the financial institution, and other transactions on behalf of the financial institution, etc.

Nevertheless, on October 25, 2004, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the real name and payment of the first instance judgment, which acquitted the Defendants on this part of the charges, on the ground that Defendant 1, an employee of the Defendant Co-Defendant 1, provided financial transaction information or data to others without a written request or consent from the non-indicted 3 on the part of the court below, on October 25, 2004, without obtaining a request from the non-indicted 1 for verification of the content of insurance coverage, such as the securities number, insurance premium, basic refund money, etc. of the new family welfare insurance, which the non-indicted was admitted as a contract by the non-indicted Co-Defendant 3 of the court below at the written branch of the defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant 1 located in Busan Seodong-dong, Busan High-dong, Busan High-dong.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)