[1] In a case where two fundamental rights conflict over a single legal relationship, the method of determining the illegality of the infringement

[2] In a case where a member of the National Assembly discloses through the Internet the "real name data in which teachers' organization and teachers' union members of various levels", the case affirming the order of the court below which accepted the application for provisional disposition prohibiting disclosure of information on the ground that the disclosure of the above information does not necessarily mean that the student's right to learning, right to education, or right to education, or right to know, of the student to the extent that it is justified for infringement of the right to self-determination

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 300 of the Civil Execution Act, Articles 10, 17, 21, 31 and 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Da16280 Decided October 13, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1897) Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da38288 Decided April 22, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 897)

【Defendant-Appellee】 Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1548 decided May 1, 201

National Teachers' Union and 16 others (Law Firm Nawn et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 2010Ra1306 dated February 8, 2011

All reappeals are dismissed. Expenses incurred in reappeals are borne by the re-appellants.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground for reappeal

The court below held that even if a member of the National Assembly is a member of the National Assembly, the disclosure of the information of this case against an obligor is a de facto act performed outside the National Assembly and is not specially given an independent authority to a member of the National Assembly under the Constitution and the laws, unless it is specifically provided in the Constitution and the laws, the disclosure of the information of this case outside the National Assembly is separate act, and it cannot be deemed an act of exercising the authority of a member of the National Assembly, which is an institution under the Constitution, unless it is provided in separate procedures or grounds therefor, and the creditors' personal rights, personal rights, right to name, privacy, and right to control information protection can be subject to the Civil Procedure Act and the Civil Execution Act like individuals. The court held that the court of this case has jurisdiction over the application of provisional disposition of this case related to the disclosure of information of this case, on the ground that it is evident that the creditors' provisional disposition against the obligor is made by taking as natural person as a right to preserve the infringement of the right to request the preservation of personal rights, right to privacy, and right to control information management.

Examining the reasoning of the order of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the jurisdiction of application for provisional disposition

2. As to the second ground for reappeal

In a case where two fundamental rights conflict over one legal relationship, the determination of illegality of the act should be made by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances in a specific case as well as by interpreting the actual harmony between both fundamental rights, and by taking into account the limitation on the exercise of both fundamental rights determined according to the result (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da38288, Apr. 22, 2010). In the course of balancing these interests, first, the elements to be considered in the area of infringement include the contents and importance of the profit to be achieved by the act of infringement, their importance, necessity and effectiveness, supplementaryness and urgency of the act of infringement, and reasonableness of the method of infringement. Second, the factors to be considered in the area of the damaged interest include the degree of damage suffered by the victim due to the act of infringement, the protection of the damaged interest, and the protection value of the damaged interest, and the fact that the assessed act constitutes a tort by infringing on the protection area of the rights is not unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da12684, Oct. 13, 2006).

The court below rejected the claim that the act of the student or parents' right to know conflicts with the fundamental rights of the teacher and the union and the interpretation or measures that can be in harmony with the fundamental rights of the teacher and the union because the student or parents' right to know conflict with the teacher's right to self-determination or the right to organize of the teacher's personal rights derived from the personality rights of the teacher protected by the Constitution, etc. if the student or parents request the provision of information on a specific teacher's trade union beyond the scope of disclosure under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disclosure of Information by Education-Related Institutions and the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disclosure of Information by the student or parents' right to know beyond the scope of disclosure under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disclosure of Information by Education-Related Institutions and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disclosure of Information by the student or parents' right to access to the teacher's right to know or access to the information on a specific trade union through the Internet. In light of its stated reasoning, it is hard to conclude that the act of the student or parents' right to self-determination or the right to know.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to learn, right to know, secret and freedom of privacy, and right to organize, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to balancing interests, as otherwise alleged

3. As to the third ground for reappeal

In determining the necessity of provisional disposition of this case sought by creditors, the court below held that the application of provisional disposition of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of the obligor needs to be ordered not to disclose information on the Internet, etc. or not to disclose information on the media, etc., on the following grounds: in full view of the following: (a) the nature and content of the preserved right; (b) the background leading up to the application of provisional disposition; (c) the prediction of the failure of the lawsuit on the merits; and (d) the content and degree of damages suffered by creditors by the obligor by failing to issue a provisional disposition; and (

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the necessity of preservation as alleged in the grounds

4. Conclusion

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

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)