The case holding that a financial institution which provides a lending company with an occupational partnership with an AIP to inquire into a customer's credit information is liable for damages suffered by a customer due to an illegal credit information inquiry by the lending company

In a case where a financial institution provides a lending company with an access to credit information of a customer, which is in a business partnership relationship, and the lending company illegally inquireds the customer's credit information regardless of the establishment and maintenance of financial transaction relations with the customer by using such information, the case holding that it is difficult to deem that there is no intention or negligence as provided by Article 28 (1) of the former Act on the Use and Protection of Credit Information (amended by Act No. 7344 of Jan. 27, 2005) solely on the ground that the financial institution does not have any proof of the decline in credit rating due to the above credit inquiry, and the financial institution is not in a position to manage and supervise the lending company.

Articles 24(1) and 28(1) of the former Use and Protection of Credit Information Act (amended by Act No. 7344 of Jan. 27, 2005)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm Han-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gaso97718 Decided November 16, 2007

May 6, 2008

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,50,000 won with 5% interest per annum from May 5, 2007 to May 27, 2008 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff shall bear 90% of the total litigation cost, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15,00,000 won 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 Defendant Company concluded a business partnership agreement with the non-party company, and accordingly, provided the non-party company with information about the Plaintiff’s credit information.

B. In around 2004, the non-party company used the oppy provided by the defendant company without the plaintiff's consent to inquire of the plaintiff's credit information regardless of the establishment of financial transaction relationship between the defendant company, the non-party company, and the plaintiff (hereinafter "the credit inquiry of this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff suffered losses due to the defendant's illegal credit information inquiry that could not receive a loan from commercial banks, and sought compensation for mental damage caused by this.

In regard to this, the defendant company asserts that it is difficult to view that the credit rating of the plaintiff was reduced due to the credit inquiry of this case, since it is in a business partnership relationship with the non-party company and is not in a position to supervise the non-party company.

3. Determination

A. Relevant statutes

former Credit Information Use and Protection Act (amended by Act No. 7344 of Jan. 27, 2005; hereinafter “Credit Information Protection Act”)

(1) REITUD ACT. - The personal credit information shall be provided and used only for the purpose of determining whether to build and maintain commercial transaction relationships, including financial transactions, with the relevant owner of credit information, except in the following cases:

(2) Article 28 - Operators of credit information business, etc. and other users of credit information shall be liable for damages to the owner of credit information if they have inflicted damage on the owner of credit information by violating the provisions of this Act: Provided, That this shall not apply where credit information dealers, etc. and other users of credit information prove that they had

(b) Markets:

In this case, the defendant company granted the right to inquire of the plaintiff's credit information to the non-party company regardless of the establishment and maintenance of financial transaction relations with the plaintiff, and the non-party company also abused the power granted by the plaintiff to inquire of the plaintiff's credit information regardless of the establishment and maintenance of financial transaction relations with the plaintiff. The defendant company is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the credit inquiry circuit in violation of Article 24 (1) of the Credit Information Protection Act, and it cannot be ruled out that the credit assessment of the financial institution of this case cannot be reduced due to the credit inquiry circuit in this case. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff did not have any damage to the credit inquiry circuit in this case because there is no proof of decline in the specific credit rating. Thus, the defendant is liable to inquire of mental damage suffered by the plaintiff, and the defendant company did not have any status to supervise and manage the non-party company. It is difficult to view that the defendant did not have any intention or negligence as provided for in Article 28 of the Credit Information Protection Act with respect to the credit inquiry association

However, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 1,50,000 in light of the following factors: (a) the credit inquiry in this case was conducted; (b) the background and frequency of the credit inquiry in this case; and (c) the degree of impact on the credit rating of the plaintiff by the credit inquiry in this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,50,000 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum under the Civil Act from May 5, 2007 following the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to May 27, 2008, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without any justifiable reason. Since the part against the plaintiff which lost the claim of this case of the first instance judgment which partially different conclusions is unfair, it is so revoked, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. With respect to the bearing of litigation costs, Article 101 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 213 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to provisional execution.

Judges Park Jae-il (Presiding Judge)