The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, as a major shareholder of the Defendant, opened a total of 29 accounts in the Defendant bank.

B. From June 9, 2010 to June 30, 2014, Defendant employees inquired the Plaintiff’s financial transaction details, account information, general customer information, etc. on 1,143 occasions as shown in the first instance judgment.

C. On July 17, 2013, the Financial Supervisory Service imposed an administrative fine of KRW 87,500,00 on the Defendant on the ground that the personal credit information was unfairly inquired of the personal credit information between July 27, 2010 and March 26, 2012, and imposed sanctions, such as warnings against the Defendant’s executive officers, suspension from office, salary reduction, reprimand, etc., on the Defendant’s employees, even if the personal credit information was used only for the purpose of determining whether a commercial transaction relationship was established and maintained, and it was possible to use it only when it was permitted by other Acts.

Among the details of illegal personal credit information inquiries subject to the above sanctions, the number of inquiries about the account in the name of the plaintiff is 23 times.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional numbers), inquiry results about the Financial Supervisory Service of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Article 33 of the Act on the Use and Protection of Credit Information Involving Liability for Damages (amended by Act No. 13216, Mar. 11, 2015; hereinafter “former Credit Information Act”) provides that personal credit information shall, in principle, be used only for the purpose of determining whether to build and maintain commercial transaction relationships, including financial transactions, applied by the relevant owner of credit information.

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant employees committed an illegal act of unfairly inquiring the Plaintiff’s personal credit information 23 times beyond the purpose of determining whether to build and maintain a commercial transaction relationship requested by the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant is the employer of the above employees.