[1] The case holding that the act of disclosing the name of a school, the name of a teacher, the department in charge, the organization of a teacher and the current status of joining the teachers' union through the Internet homepage constitutes an infringement on the right to self-determination of personal information of the relevant teacher, and thus

[2] Whether a teacher's trade union's membership and withdrawal is excluded from the protection of privacy and freedom (negative)

[3] Whether the act of disclosing information about whether a teacher joined a trade union exceeds the legitimate scope of the student's right to learning or the right to know of the parents and the general public's right to know (affirmative)

[1] In a case where Gap disclosed the current status of school name, teacher name, department in charge, teachers' organization, and trade union membership on its Internet homepage, the case holding that the above information constitutes personal information subject to protection by the right to self-determination of personal information, and the restriction of the right to self-determination of personal information derived from the right to self-determination of personal information and the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution is allowed only when it is disclosed to the public within a reasonable scope in relation to public interests, and thus, Gap's disclosure of the above information constitutes a tort as a matter of principle, since

[2] Whether a trade union is admitted and withdrawn is freely decided as a teacher's employee, and its activities are irrelevant to the teacher's educational duty, so there is no relation to the teacher's public position. On the other hand, in respect of public figures, the privacy is restricted within a certain scope and the disclosure of private life is exempted. However, since public figures are subject to general citizen's right to know and their disclosure is based on the fact that the public status is public interest, it cannot be said that the establishment and withdrawal of a trade union is not subject to protection of privacy and freedom of private life.

[3] Disclosure of information about school teachers' right to know constitutes infringement of the right to self-determination of personal rights and freedom of privacy of school teachers. This may arise due to conflict between the right to know of parents and the right to self-determination of personal information of school teachers. If the information about whether an individual has joined a specific trade union is disclosed, considerable restrictions may arise on the workers' right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action rights guaranteed by Article 33 of the Constitution. In particular, considering the autonomy, expertise, and political neutrality of education stipulated under Article 31 of the Constitution, it is deemed necessary to protect the school teachers' right to know at a higher level than general personal information. Thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the school teachers' right to know is more likely to suffer any disadvantage in the process of school teachers' livelihood through the establishment of the right to self-determination of personal information and the right to self-determination of personal information of school teachers. It is difficult to readily conclude that the act of disclosure of information about school teachers' right to self-determination of school teachers beyond the scope of individual teachers' right to know and its legal interests cannot be determined as an infringement of school teachers' right to know.

[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Articles 10, 17, and 21(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 316 and 317 of the Criminal Act; Article 2(1)6 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. / [2] Articles 750, 751 of the Civil Act; Articles 10 and 17 of the Constitution; Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act / [3] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act; Articles 10, 17, 21, 31, and 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 3, 5(1)15 and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Information Disclosure by Education-Related Institutions; Article 3(1) [Attachment 15] 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Special Cases concerning Information Disclosure by Education-Related Institutions

[2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da42789 delivered on July 24, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2200) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16280 delivered on October 13, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1897)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) (Attorney Cho Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant

January 27, 2011

1. The defendant shall pay 10,000 won to the plaintiff (Appointeds) and the appointed parties each of the above amounts with 5% per annum from June 11, 2010 to February 17, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff (Appointed)'s remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 1,00,000 won to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed parties with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) are teachers, and the members of the National Teachers’ Union (hereinafter referred to as the “National Teachers’ Union”) are members, and the Defendant is the full-time representative of the Busan Branch of the School (hereinafter referred to as the “School Private Offering”) of the “National Teachers’ Union.”

B. On May 6, 2010, the Defendant, through the Nonparty’s Internet homepage, obtained data including the real name, department in charge, membership organization, etc. of teachers who join each school and teachers who join each trade union, made it clear that the said data will be disclosed to the public through the press conference on May 6, 2010. On the same day, the Busan Busan District Office demanded the Defendant not to disclose the said data. However, the Defendant, on the 10th day of the same month, disclosed the current status of the teachers’ name, teachers’ name, department in charge, teachers’ organization, and trade union membership (hereinafter “instant information”).

C. After that, on May 11, 2010, the Defendant disclosed the name of the teachers, the name of the teacher, the department in charge, the faculty organization, and the trade union membership status of the teachers in the area south of the Republic of Korea in the same manner. On the 14th day of the same month, the Busan District Office requested the Defendant to delete the instant information, but the Defendant did not comply therewith, and the Defendant also disclosed the name of the teachers, the name of the teacher, the department in charge, the status of the teacher organization, and the trade union membership status of the teachers in the area Ulsansan District on the same manner as that of the teachers in the above Internet homepage,

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that since the defendant continuously posted the information of this case on the Internet homepage and infringed the plaintiffs' privacy and freedom, the defendant is obligated to pay 1,000,000 won to the plaintiffs as compensation for tort.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The defendant asserts that the disclosure of the information of this case by the defendant is not unlawful since it is aimed at realizing the plaintiffs' right to know the parents and the general public superior to the plaintiffs' privacy and freedom of privacy, since the plaintiffs' privacy and freedom of privacy are restricted by the public status of teachers. Thus, the defendant's disclosure of the information of this case did not infringe upon any legal interest of the plaintiffs.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) The right to self-determination and the nature of the instant information

The general personal rights derived from the first sentence of Article 10 of the Constitution and the right to self-determination of personal information guaranteed by the freedom and privacy under Article 17 of the Constitution are the right in which the subject of the right to self-determination of personal information determines when and to what extent he/she would know and use. Personal information subject to protection by the right to self-determination of personal information refers to any information that features an individual’s personality nature, such as body, faith, social status, status, etc., and which does not necessarily include personal information that is limited to an individual’s inner or private domain and is formed or already made public in a public life (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 9Hun-Ma513, 2004Hun-Ma190, May 26, 2005; Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2005Hun-Ma238, Jul. 21, 2005).

Meanwhile, Article 2(1)6 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. provides that information about an individual who is alive is information such as codes, letters, voice, sound, image, etc. (where such information alone cannot identify a specific individual but can easily be combined with other information, it shall include such information) that can identify a specific individual by his/her name, resident registration number, etc., and the information in this case includes the name of the school, the name of the teacher, the department in charge, the teacher organization, and the trade union membership status, and thus, contains information that can identify a specific individual, and thus constitutes personal information subject to protection

2) Whether it infringes on the privacy and freedom of privacy

Article 10 of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall be dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness," Article 17 of the same Act provides that "no citizen shall infringe on any person's privacy and freedom," and Article 21 (4) of the same Act provides that "press and publishing shall infringe on any other person's honor, right, public morals or social ethics. When the press and publishing infringe on any other person's reputation or right, any injured person may claim compensation for damages therefrom." Articles 316 and 317 of the Criminal Act provide that "The act infringing on or divulging a certain person's privacy may be punished for the purpose of protecting the privacy and peace of an individual. In full view of these provisions, the person has a legal interest not to disclose the matters concerning the privacy of an individual without permission. Thus, the matters concerning the privacy of an individual shall be protected as a secret unless it comes to the subject of legitimate public interest in relation to public interest, and the unlawful disclosure of them shall constitute a tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1998Da1637, Apr. 16, 1998).

Therefore, the restriction on the right to self-determination of personal information derived from the right to self-determination of personal information and the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution is allowed only when it is disclosed to the public within a reasonable scope in relation to public interests. Thus, in principle, the Defendant’s disclosure of the instant information constitutes tort against the Plaintiffs as it infringes

3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A) Whether disclosure of the instant information by the plaintiffs' public status is permitted

In general, a trade union refers to an organization or associated organization established by itself as the principal agent for the purpose of maintaining and improving the working conditions and enhancing the economic and social status of workers (see Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act). Whether to join or withdraw from a trade union is free to the position of an individual of workers, and its activities are irrelevant to teachers’ educational duties. As such, there is no relation to the public status of teachers. Even if the instant information is due to the public status of the Plaintiffs, there may be cases where the privacy is restricted within a certain scope and the freedom of privacy is exempted from disclosure. However, the public figure is based on the fact that the public figure is subject to the right to know and the disclosure is beneficial to the public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da42789, Jul. 24, 1998). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B) Whether parents and the general public's right to know is limited

Since all citizens have the right to know guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, i.e., the right to access, collect, and process information, it is reasonable to see that parents with the right to education for children have the right to know about the educational environment, operational status, job ability, etc. of various levels of schools. However, disclosing information as to whether to join a teachers' union based on parents' right to know constitutes an infringement of the right to self-determination of personal rights and freedom of privacy guaranteed by parents' right to know and the right to self-determination of personal information of the teachers. This is

In a case where two different directions conflict over the act of infringing privacy, the illegality of the said act is determined through a balancing of interests by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances in a specific case. The elements to be considered in the course of balancing of interests include: (i) the content and importance of the profit to be achieved by the act of infringement; (ii) the necessity and effectiveness of the act of infringement; (iii) the supplement and urgency of the act of infringement; and (iv) the reasonableness of the method of infringement; and (iv) the factors to be considered in the territory of the damaged interest include the content, gravity and degree of damage suffered by the victim due to the act of infringement; and (v) the protection value of the damaged interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16280, Oct. 13, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles, first of all, the information on whether an individual has joined a specific trade union may seriously restrict the employee's right to organize, collective bargaining, and collective action guaranteed by Article 33 of the Constitution if disclosed. In particular, considering the guarantee of the autonomy, expertise, and political neutrality of education provided by Article 31 of the Constitution, the instant information included in the membership status of the teachers' trade union and teachers' organization need to be protected at a level higher than general personal information. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the parent's right to know is more superior than that of general personal information (Comparison of legal interests).

In order for the disclosure of matters related to privacy to be illegal as it infringes on privacy, the disclosure of the matters announced to the public should not be made public at the time of the individual's personal position based on the universal assumption, and the disclosure is not yet made known to the general public, and the disclosure is made public so that the individual's non-obsting or uneasibleness may be caused (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15922 Decided December 22, 2006). If the membership of a trade union is made public, the plaintiffs who are members of the trade union may suffer any disadvantage in the course of the teacher's livelihood or may be subject to social prejudice by joining the trade union, and the degree of such unstable damage cannot be said to be small, and the disclosure of the information of this case is difficult to recover the anxiety due to the disclosure (the gravity of legal interests and the degree of damage).

In addition, even if a parent has a right to know about the composition of a school teacher or a teacher's ability to perform duties, etc. of a school where his/her child attends a trade union, it is difficult to conclude that the relevant teacher has a specific educational officer or belief, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that whether to join a trade union of a teacher has a specific educational officer or belief (the need and effectiveness of

A parent may request a school teacher to provide information on personal matters, such as the student's personal information or whether he/she has joined a labor union when he/she actually infringes on the student's right to learn or the educational right of parents. However, in principle, parents may request the relevant school teacher to provide necessary information. Meanwhile, the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Disclosure of Information by Education-Related Institutions provides that the head of a school that provides elementary and secondary education shall give public notice of "the current status of school teachers' organization and labor union membership" at least once a year [Article 5(1)15 and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 3(1) [Attachment 1] 15(h) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 3(1) of the same Act [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act [Attachment 1] of the same Act]. However, in this case, where it is unclear whether a specific infringement on the student's right to learn or the educational right of parents has occurred by the Plaintiffs, it is difficult to view that there was an urgent infringement on the Internet homepage of this case.

In full view of these various circumstances, the Defendant’s disclosure of the instant information constitutes an infringement on the Plaintiffs’ right to self-determination of personal information beyond the reasonable scope of students’ right to learn or the right to know of students’ parents and the general public’ right to know. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion

C) The plaintiffs' assertion that there is no special legal interest infringement.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the right to self-determination of personal information, which is the fundamental right of the plaintiffs guaranteed by the Constitution, was infringed upon by the disclosure of the information of this case by the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiffs can be acknowledged in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiffs suffered any disadvantage in the course of teacher's livelihood by joining a trade union, or that their personal activities are known to be subject to social prejudice, thereby suffering from mental suffering, and that the defendant could have predicted it. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, since the defendant's disclosure of the information of this case constitutes a tort that infringes the plaintiffs' privacy and freedom, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money as compensation for tort.

B. Scope of liability for damages;

Furthermore, as to the scope of the defendant's liability for damages against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' disclosure of the information of this case caused fears and apprehensions about their free private activities by infringing the plaintiffs' privacy and freedom of privacy, and the defendant forced to disclose the information of this case despite the plaintiffs' opposing intent to disclose the information of this case, and continues to disclose the information of this case until the date of the closing of argument. The defendant obtained and disclosed the information of this case on the non-party's Internet homepage for the first time, not for the first time, but for the first time. The defendant disclosed the information of this case in the motive of realizing his parents' right to know, not for the personal interest or purpose, and for the purpose of realizing his right to know, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid to the plaintiffs as KRW 10,000, respectively.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for tort to the plaintiffs at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 11, 201 to February 17, 201, which is the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, as damages for tort damages to the plaintiffs, and as the plaintiff (appointed party) seeks, the claim of this case is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List of Selections: Omitted

Judges Go Young-tae (Presiding Judge)