The meaning of “personal location information” as prescribed by the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information, and the purport of the former Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information that prohibits collection, etc. of personal location information and imposes criminal punishment upon violations thereof.

The term “personal location information” is information about a place where a certain individual exists or existed at a certain time, and is collected using telecommunications equipment and facilities and telecommunications line equipment under Article 2 subparag. 2 and 3 of the Framework Act on Telecommunications. The location information alone includes information that makes it possible to easily combine with other information to identify a specific individual (Article 2 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information). Comprehensively analyzing the location information in other information, it is highly likely that privacy may be infringed if the location information is leaked or abused. Accordingly, the former Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information (Amended by Act No. 13540, Dec. 1, 2015) provides that a person may not collect or provide the location information of an individual or mobile object without the consent of the individual or owner, and penally punish a person in violation of Article 2 subparag. 1 and 40(1) of the Act (see, e.g., Article 15(1)4).

On the other hand, where a third party collects, uses, or provides personal location information without the consent of the owner of the information, whether the occurrence of mental damage that can compensate the owner of the information as consolation money has occurred shall be determined on a case-by-case basis, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as whether the collection of location information could identify the owner of the information, whether a third party has access to, etc. the collected location information, whether the third party has used the collected location information for a long time, whether the collection and use period of location information was long, and what measures were taken to prevent the occurrence and spread of damage caused by the collection and use of location information

Article 2 subparag. 1 and 2 of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information; Article 15(1) and Article 40 of the former Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information (Amended by Act No. 13540, Dec. 1, 2015);

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Law Firm Volcan, Attorneys Yoon Woo-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Na41513 decided July 17, 2014

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. “Personal location information” is information about a place where an individual exists or existed at a certain time, and is collected using telecommunications equipment and facilities or telecommunications line equipment under Article 2 subparag. 2 and 3 of the Framework Act on Telecommunications. Even where location information alone is not enough to identify a specific individual, it includes information that can easily combine with other information to identify a specific individual’s location (Article 2 subparag. 1 and subparag. 2 of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information). Comprehensively analyzing such location information with other information, it is highly likely that a person’s privacy may be infringed if his/her location information is leaked, misused, or abused. Accordingly, the former Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information (amended by Act No. 13540, Dec. 1, 2015) may not collect, use, or provide the location information of the individual or mobile object without the consent of the individual or owner (see Articles 15(1) and 15(1)4(2) of the Act).

Meanwhile, in a case where a third party collects, uses, or provides personal location information without the consent of the subject of location information, whether there was a possibility that the subject of information could be identified as consolation money, whether a third party has used the collected location information by collecting location information, whether the third party has used the collected location information for a long time, whether the collection and use of location information for a long time, the circumstances leading to the collection of location information and the status of managing the collected information, and what measures were taken to prevent the occurrence and spread of damage caused by the collection and use of location information, shall be determined individually in accordance with a specific case.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: ① A corporate taxi and private taxi drivers of Gwangju-si form the "Committee for Promotion of Gwangju-si brand Business" (hereinafter referred to as the "Promotion Committee") around February 13, 2008; and entered into a contract for supply of call control system (hereinafter referred to as the "instant call control system"); ② The Plaintiffs, private taxi business entities of Gwangju-si, were provided with call control services through the instant call control system from around April 30, 2008 to 2008; ③ Some members of the Promotion Committee established the Promotion Committee as the representative director of Gwangju-si office to ensure that they did not use the pertinent call system's office's office's location information at the Gwangju-si office's 2-si office's office's location information; ④ the Promotion Committee provided the Plaintiff's call control system's office's computer control service's service's computer control service's 1-dong office's user call system's information on June 25, 2008.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that: (a) although it may be deemed that the Defendants collected location information without the consent of individual taxi drivers, including the Plaintiffs; (b) the call control system of the instant case was linked with the tyco information collection system; (c) as Gwangju-si was in need of collecting tyco information pursuant to the Passenger Transport Service Act, it merely viewed the operation situation of the call control system of the instant case in the process of seeking information collection system; (b) as alleged by the Plaintiffs, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants suffered damages by driving a vehicle favorable to Gwangju-si drivers; (c) it is not specific that the Defendants collected and used the location information of the Plaintiffs in any form; and (d) call service members did not raise any objection to the instant call control system and tyco information collection system around July 2010 until the alteration of the software; and (d) the Plaintiffs used the call center to pay damages to the Plaintiffs for emotional distress during the period of 25 years and 21 days after the alteration of the software as above.

3. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Defendant 1, as the former secretary of Gwangju-si, collected and perused the plaintiffs' personal taxi location information from the computer of Gwangju-si office without obtaining consent from the plaintiffs, from April 30, 2008 to July 2010, through the call control system of this case. Defendant 2 knew that Gwangju-si did not obtain consent from the plaintiffs for the collection of location information, and even though he knew that Gwangju-si did not have consent from the plaintiffs, Defendant 1 connected the call control system of this case so that Defendant 1 can read the plaintiffs' location information, the above act by the defendants is in violation of the Act on the Protection and Use of Location Information, etc., and constitutes a tort against the plaintiffs.

Furthermore, the following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, namely, the call control system of this case used to collect location information, was collected from five to one minute-time at the location of all members, and stored the data in the KRDC center, and transmitted the letters on the sib screen of a taxi located within a certain distance from the already collected location information to the customer when the customer calls. When the member's vehicle number is entered, the subject of information can be identified immediately because the individual member's location information can be tracking the location of the individual member's location. Defendant 1 grasped whether the engineers belonging to Gwangju taxi gather with other taxi engineers including the plaintiffs, and the tendency and place of the gathering of the users through the call control system of this case from time to time. Accordingly, considering that the personal location information trend of the taxi engineer, such as confirming gambling or drinking act of the taxi engineer, etc., was used at the site directly, and that the period exceeds two years, the plaintiffs suffered mental damage from the infringement of the plaintiffs' personal location information during the long-term collection of the plaintiffs' personal location information.

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on these circumstances more and judged whether the plaintiffs suffered mental damage which could compensate as consolation money, but without doing so, rejected the plaintiffs' assertion. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the collection, use, and mental damage of personal location information, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

The lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: Omitted

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)