2014Do7598 Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act

A

Defendant

Law Firm (LLC) B

Attorney I, J. C, K, D

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014No202 Decided May 29, 2014

April 13, 2017

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that the Defendant’s act does not constitute a justifiable act because it does not meet the requirements of urgency and supplement, and thus does not constitute a justifiable act, on the grounds that the act of entering the name and address of G’s personal information manager and mobile phone number in the complaint against G is clearly necessary to achieve the legitimate interests of the personal information manager as stipulated in Article 15(1)6 of the Personal Information Protection Act, and it does not clearly take precedence over the right of the subject of the information manager, and does not exceed the reasonable scope.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on intentional act in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the constituent elements and the relevant lawful act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Justices Kim Gin-young