Whether it is possible to conduct a written hearing in the appellate court of a personal protection case (affirmative) / Whether the appellant has a duty to submit a written reason for appeal (negative), and whether the court shall investigate the case limited to the reasons for appeal specified in the written reason for appeal (negative)

Except as otherwise expressly provided, the method of deliberation on a complaint in a personal protection case shall be governed by the method of deliberation on a complaint under the Civil Procedure Act (Articles 15 and 17 of the Personal Protection Act, and Article 18 of the Personal Protection Rule). Since a complaint case is to be concluded by decision, there is no need to undergo essential pleadings. The appellate court may examine the appellant, interested parties, and other witnesses when deemed necessary in the course of deliberation on the complaint case (Article 134(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, the appellate court does not necessarily have to follow the method of deliberation in the first instance trial (where the date of examination is naturally set pursuant to Article 10(1) and the main sentence of Article 12(1) of the Personal Protection Act and summon the respondent and the inmate, and, in principle, undergo the examination in the open court). Thus, it is also possible for the appellate court to conduct the examination in the way of written examination on the party concerned, probation office, specialized medical institution, etc. and the records of trial in the first instance trial

In addition, the provisions pertaining to an appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the proceedings of the appellate court unless it is contrary to the nature of the appeal (Article 443(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Even though an immediate appeal was filed for more than the period, if the presiding judge of the lower court did not dismiss the petition of an immediate appeal, the presiding judge of the appellate court shall dismiss the petition by order (Articles 443(1) and 402(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). An immediate appeal may be lodged against the above order to dismiss the petition of appeal (Articles 443(1) and 402(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). Although there is a case where the appellant submits a written reason for appeal until the judgment on the appeal was rendered, unlike the case where the appellant imposes a duty to submit the written reason for reappeal under Article 16-2 of the Personal Information Protection Rule, it does not require the court to submit the written reason for appeal, but does

Articles 10(1), 12(1) and (2), 13, 15, 17, 16-2, and 18 of the Personal Protection Act; Articles 134(1) and (2), 39(2), 402(2) and (3), and 443(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Remedial Applicants

Attorney Park Jung-young

A medical corporation, ○○ Medical Foundation Head of △△ Hospital

Changwon District Court Order 2015Ra5 dated April 29, 2015

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. The method of deliberating on an appeal in the case of petition for remedy under the Personal Identity Protection Act;

Article 15 of the Personal Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “The petitioner and the prisoner for remedy may file an immediate appeal within three days if they are dissatisfied with the ruling under Article 13.” Meanwhile, Article 17 of the Act provides that “other matters necessary for the deliberation and trial of the petition for remedy shall be prescribed by the Supreme Court Regulations,” and Article 18 of the Rules on the Protection of Personal Identity provides that “The matters not prescribed by these Rules shall be governed by the same law to the extent that they are not contrary to their nature.”

Therefore, barring any special provision, the method of the appellate trial for the personal data protection case shall be governed by the method of the appellate trial under the Civil Procedure Act, unless otherwise stipulated. Since the appellate case is to be completed by a ruling, there is no need to undergo essential pleadings, and the appellate court may, when deemed necessary in the course of examining the appellate case, examine the appellant, interested parties and other reference persons (Article 134(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, the appellate court necessarily does not need to follow the method of the first instance trial ( naturally designated the date of examination pursuant to Articles 10(1) and 12(1) main sentence of Article 12(1) of the Act, and, in principle, summon the petitioner for remedy and the inmate at an open court). Therefore, it is also possible to conduct the appellate trial in the manner of written hearing for the parties, probation offices, medical institutions, and the

In addition, the provisions pertaining to an appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the proceedings of the appellate court unless it is contrary to its nature (Article 443(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Even though an immediate appeal has been filed for more than the period, if the presiding judge of the lower court did not dismiss the petition of an immediate appeal, the presiding judge of the appellate court shall dismiss the petition by order (Articles 443(1) and 402(2)). An immediate appeal against the order to dismiss the petition of appeal may be filed by the presiding judge of the appellate court (Articles 443(1) and 402(3)). Although there is a case where the appellant submits a written reason for appeal until the judgment on the appeal is rendered, unlike the case where the appellant imposes a duty to submit a written reason for reappeal under Article 16-2 of the Personal Information Protection Rule, it does not require the court to submit a written reason for appeal, and it does not require that

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The treatment process of the claimant for remedy is good, and it reflects his mistake, and it is not possible that violence will be realized later, so there is no need for detention of the claimant for remedy.

3. Determination

The first instance court dismissed the petition for remedy based on the following circumstances: (i) the applicant for remedy was absent from the game without a certain occupation and did not engage in basic sanitary management; (ii) the applicant did not have any emotional and impulse control such as explosioning against his/her family members; (iii) the possibility of maintaining treatment after the discharge is low due to the low awareness of game addiction; (iv) it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that he/she would display decentralization dynamicly without a certain place of work; and (v) family members caused sexual assault against the applicant for remedy, without recognizing his/her own problem; and (v) it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that he/she will display decentralization dynamicly as a result of the psychological examination of the applicant for remedy; and

According to the supporting documents of the claimant for remedy, the statement of opinion submitted by the probation office, and the result of the first instance examination, and the materials submitted to the court of first instance and the trial of the case, all family members of the claimant for remedy oppose the release of the claimant for remedy on the grounds of retaliation or fear of violence, etc., and the opinion in the psychological status of the claimant for remedy prepared by the Busan Probation Office is also negative as to the release of the claimant for remedy. In light of the various circumstances indicated in the records of this case, it is reasonable to conclude that the court of first instance has a need to continue to accept the petition until the treatment of the claimant for remedy is completed on the ground of the aforementioned circumstances and the recovery of mental and psychological stability to the extent that he/she can lead a social life. Accordingly, the argument of the claimant for remedy has no merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal of this case by the appellant is dismissed in accordance with Article 18 of the Personal Information Protection Regulation, Articles 443(1) and 414(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Chang-young (Presiding Judge)