[1] The standard for determining whether a document constitutes “a document used by a person holding a false document” under Article 344(2)2 of the Civil Procedure Act as an exception for refusing to submit a document, and the case where, subjectively, it cannot be readily concluded that a document prepared by a company with approval from the company as a self-use document for its main purpose of internal use is a document for its own use

[2] In a case where a document subject to an order to submit a report is not required as a documentary evidence or is not directly related to the claim that the document is to be proved as a documentary evidence, whether the application may be rejected (affirmative)

[3] Whether the holder of the document may refuse to submit the document on the ground that the payment of wages and bonus to officers and employees constitutes personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act (negative)

[4] Meaning of “professional secrets” under Articles 344(2)1, 344(1)3(c), and 315(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act as exceptional grounds for refusing to submit documents

[1] Article 344(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a person holding a document shall not, in principle, refuse to submit the document, even if he/she does not fall under Article 344(1) of the same Act, and stipulates that “documents for the use by the person holding a false document” (the “documents for the use by the person holding the false document”) as exceptional grounds.

If a document solely is prepared for the purpose of use by a person holding a document and is not expected to be commenced for the purpose of use by the outside person, and there is a concern that the document may seriously disadvantage the outside person, barring special circumstances, the document constitutes one’s own use document under the above provision. Here, whether a document constitutes one’s own use document shall not be determined solely with the title or title of the document, and information falling under the content of the document, the type and type of document is generally held in light of the purpose of preparing the document, information falling under the contents thereof, the generally accepted tendency of the document, the process of carrying the document, and other circumstances. Even if a document is written after the internal approval from the company for the primary purpose of internal use, if it is subjectively included in the content of the document, it cannot be readily concluded that the document itself is an internal use document solely on the ground that the document itself does not include any information identical to the document with which the applicant has a private right to request the perusal, etc., or information that is the basis and directly based on the external use of the document.

Meanwhile, even in cases where the grounds for refusing to submit a document, such as a self-use document, are not acknowledged, the court may refuse an application for submission when it deems that the document subject to an application for submission is unnecessary as a documentary evidence pursuant to Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court may order the person holding the document to submit a document by ruling when it recognizes that the application for submission of a document is justifiable in accordance with Article 347(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, whether the document is necessary to determine the issue or prove fact, whether it is possible to obtain data from another document, whether it is possible for the document to obtain data from another document, and the burden to be received by the respondent when submitting the document, property damage or property damage, or personal privacy or business secrets inside the corporation, and comparative comparison and balancing with infringement on other rights, and other various circumstances in the lawsuit, it shall be determined whether the document is necessary to submit a document and whether there is

[2] The filing of an application to order the holder of the document to submit it is one of the forms of filing a request for submission of the document. Thus, the court may refuse the application to submit the document when it deems that the document subject to an application for submission is unnecessary as a documentary evidence. Moreover, the court may not accept the application if the document subject to an order to submit the document is not directly related to the claim that the document intended to

[3] According to Article 18(2)2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, a personal information manager may use personal information for a purpose other than its original purpose or provide it to a third party. Article 344(2) of the Civil Procedure Act imposes an obligation to submit documents on the holder of the document in cases where the submission of documents does not constitute a ground for refusal of submission of documents as stipulated under each subparagraph. Thus, even if the payment of wages and bonuses by an officer or employee constitutes personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act, the holder of the document may not refuse the submission of documents on such ground.

[4] Articles 344(2)1, 344(1)3(c), and 315(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act provide that a person holding a document shall not refuse to submit the document, in principle, even if the document does not fall under Article 344(1). As an exception, a document refers to a document stating matters falling under the technical or occupational secrets and does not exempt from the obligation to maintain confidentiality.

In this context, the term “confidential of occupation” refers to cases where the disclosure of the information seriously affects the occupation and it is difficult to perform the occupation after the disclosure. Even in a case where certain information constitutes a secret of occupation, the holder of the document may refuse to submit the document only when it is confidential. Furthermore, considering the following: (a) the content and nature of the information; (b) the content and degree of disadvantage to the holder of the document by disclosing the information; (c) the content and nature of the civil case; and (d) the existence of evidence necessary or alternative to the document as evidence of a civil case, it shall be compared to the disadvantage that may arise from the disclosure of the confidential information; and (d) the substantial truth finding

[1] Articles 290, 344(2), and 347(1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 290, 343, and 347(1) of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 18(2)2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, Article 344(2) of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Articles 315(1)2, 344(1)3(c), and 347(2)1 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Order 2007Ma672 Decided September 26, 2008 / [1/4] Supreme Court Order 2015Ma4174 Decided December 21, 2015 (Gong2016Sang, 267) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da2544 Decided April 24, 1992 (Gong192, 1672)

New National Pension Heading Private Equity Funds (Law Firm, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Seo Dong-woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

C&M Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Cho Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 2014Ra875 dated December 5, 2014

The part of the order of the court below against the applicant for each document listed in paragraph (1) D, paragraph (2) (5) (excluding the statement), paragraph (3) through (5) (excluding the statement), paragraph (5), b (excluding the statement), paragraph (7), paragraph (8) (b) through (d), and paragraphs (2) through (4) of attached Table 1 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remaining reappeals of the applicant and the reappeals of the respondent shall be dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Judgment on the grounds of reappeal by the applicant

A. On the first ground for appeal

The lower court determined that the respondent may refuse to submit each of the above documents on the grounds that the documents listed in paragraphs (1)(d), (2)(5)(a), (c), (3) through (c)(excluding the statement), (5), (b), (7), (excluding the statement), (8)(b) through (d), and (2)(4) of the attached Table 1 fall under the self-use document prepared after obtaining approval from the approving authority for the internal decision-making of the respondent and prepared for the internal use of the respondent and not planned to be made available to the outside person for the internal use of the respondent.

However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

Article 344(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a person holding a document shall not, in principle, refuse to submit the document, even if the person does not fall under Article 344(1). The exceptional grounds are “documents used by the person holding a false document” (hereinafter “the document”).

If only a document is prepared for the purpose of use by a person holding the document and is not expected to be commenced for the purpose of use by the outside person, and if such document is likely to seriously disadvantage the person holding the document, such document shall constitute one’s own use under the above provision, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Order 2015Ma4174, Dec. 21, 2015). Here, whether a document constitutes one’s own use document shall not be determined solely on the title or title of the document, and it shall not be determined objectively by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and content of the document, the information falling under the content thereof, the general tendency of the type and type of document, the history of the document, and other circumstances. Even if a document is prepared after the internal approval from the company for the main purpose of subjective use, it shall not be readily concluded that the document itself contains information identical to a document in the private law where the applicant has a right to request the perusal, etc., or information, which directly is the basis and basis thereof, is not included in the external use of the document in question.

Meanwhile, even in cases where the grounds for refusing to submit a document, such as a self-use document, are not acknowledged, the court may refuse an application for submission when it deems that the document subject to an application for submission is unnecessary as a documentary evidence pursuant to Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Order 2007Ma672, Sept. 26, 2008, etc.). In cases where the application for submission of a document is deemed to have justifiable grounds pursuant to Article 347(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court may order the person holding the document to submit the document by ruling. As such, whether the document is necessary to determine the issue or prove fact, whether it is possible to obtain data from another document, whether the burden or property damage or personal privacy of the person to be obtained by the submission of the document, or individual privacy or business secrets, and whether the document is necessary to submit a document by comparing it with infringement on other rights, and whether there are justifiable grounds for the submission of the document should be determined.

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, it can be deemed that the Cze Media Co., Ltd.’s benefits, materials related to bonus payment, and detailed items of sales expenses and management expenses of the Media or Respondent C&M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C&M”), detailed items of the relevant items, standards for classification of various expenses and maintenance expenses, the amount of performance payments to executives and employees, wages and personnel expenses, advertisement prices by channel, advertising unit price by channel, various sales prices, platform sales volume, annual sales volume, annual sales volume, annual sales volume, and the details of purchase and depreciation of sales tickets, etc. include information and information that are anticipated to be disclosed to the outside through various accounting data, or information which is a direct basis thereof. The grounds for determining whether C&M directors consent to the merger of this case based on the appropriateness of the merger ratio, proposals, documents, etc. provided to the accounting corporation for review are also difficult to conclude that each of the above documents and internal accounting standards, etc., which are likely to be directly or directly based on the public notice of the terms and conditions of the merger, can only be seen as the internal accounting report or internal guidelines of the merger.

Therefore, the court below should have first judged whether each document constitutes a self-use document by examining whether it is intended to be disclosed from the outside in light of the purpose of preparing the document, the contents of the document, and the details of the possession thereof, and whether it constitutes a self-use document by examining whether it constitutes a document by its commencement, and should have determined whether there are justifiable grounds for the necessity of submitting the document and the application for submitting the document, taking into account the various circumstances in the lawsuit as to the document that does not constitute a self-use document. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the self-use document under Article 344(2)2 of the Civil Procedure Act, which affected the conclusion that each of the above documents was prepared for internal decision-making purposes of the respondent, and by dismissing the application for submitting the document, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by misapprehending the legal principles on the self-use

B. On the second ground for appeal

Inasmuch as filing an application for ordering a person holding a document to submit it is one of the forms of filing an application for the submission of the document, the court may refuse the application for the submission of the document when it deems that the document subject to the application for the submission of the document is unnecessary as a documentary evidence (see Supreme Court Order 2007Ma672, Sept. 26, 2008, etc.). Moreover, if the document subject to the order for submission of the document is not directly related to the claim in question, it may not be accepted (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da25444, Apr. 24, 1992).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's dismissal of the application for the order to submit documents on the grounds that some of the documents mentioned in attached Table 1 (1) through (c) and (e) need not be examined as documentary evidence after recognizing facts as stated in its holding is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the requirements for the order to submit documents,

2. Judgment on the grounds of reappeal by the respondent

A. As to each quoted document listed in attached Table 1 Paragraph 1

(1) The lower court rejected the Respondent’s assertion that there is no need to submit a document since each of the above documents did not affect the failure of the merits lawsuit, on the grounds that each of the above documents did not affect the failure of the merits lawsuit, inasmuch as the submission of the document was accompanied by the proof of the existence and possession of the document, and the need to examine it by documentary evidence with respect to each of the quoted documents listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which were the subject of the application for the submission of the document in this case, and the applicant also sought damages for tort against the respondent.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of reappeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles or omitting judgment.

(2) Examining in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is anticipated that the media benefit ledger, benefit provision, and bonus provision, wage statement, and bonus statement for executives and employees, etc., as cited by the court below, should be opened to the outside as information necessary for the preparation of accounting documents, such as the company's income statement, or documents with legal obligation to prepare, and even if the documents are commenced outside due to the nature of the document, it is not likely that the document holder would suffer serious disadvantage. Thus, even if the court below

(3) The court below rejected the respondent's assertion that the employee's salary and bonus receipt details, etc. included in each document listed in Schedule 1 Paragraph (1) do not constitute "personal credit information" which can determine the credit rating, credit transaction capacity, etc. of the owner of credit information as stated in the Credit Information Use and Protection Act (hereinafter "Credit Information Act"), and where the court orders submission of documents, the respondent who becomes the provider of information cannot be deemed the credit information provider/user as stated in the Credit Information Act. In order to submit the document, the court below rejected the respondent's assertion that the employee'

In light of the contents of relevant statutes and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of reappeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on

In addition, according to Article 18(2)2 of the Personal Information Protection Act, a personal information manager may use personal information for a purpose other than its original purpose or provide it to a third party. Article 344(2) of the Civil Procedure Act imposes an obligation to submit documents on the holder of the document in cases where the submission of documents does not fall under the grounds for refusal of submission of documents under each subparagraph. Thus, even if the above benefits and bonus details, etc. constitute personal information under the Personal Information Protection Act, the respondent, who is the holder of the document, may not refuse the submission of the documents on such grounds. Therefore, even if the lower court omitted the judgment on this part,

B. As to each quoted document listed in paragraphs 2 through 7 of Schedule 1

(1) The lower court determined that the Respondent was liable to submit a document on the ground that there is a need to examine each cited document listed in paragraphs (2) through (7) of the attached Table 1, which is the subject of the instant application for the submission of the document, and that there is no reason to refuse to submit a document under each subparagraph of Article 344(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of reappeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirement

(2) Article 34(2)1, Article 344(1)3(c), and Article 315(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act provide that a person holding a document may not refuse to submit the document, in principle, even if the person does not fall under Article 344(1). As an exception, a document contains a description of matters falling under the technical or professional secrets and contains documents not exempt from the obligation to keep secrets.

Here, “personal secrets” refers to cases where disclosure of the information seriously affects the pertinent occupation and it is difficult to perform the relevant occupation thereafter. Even in cases where certain information constitutes such occupational secrets, the holder of a document may refuse to submit documents only when the said information is confidential. Furthermore, in determining which information is worthy of protection, considering all the circumstances, including the content and nature of the information, the content and degree of disadvantage to the holder of the document by disclosing the information, the content and nature of the civil case, and the existence of evidence necessary or substitute for the relevant document as evidence of the civil case, the disadvantages arising from disclosure of the information and the substantial truth discovery and trial process achieved therefrom should be compared (see Supreme Court Order 2015Ma4174, Dec. 21, 2015).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in rejecting the respondent's assertion that the duty to submit documents should be exempted since the information stated in this part of the documents belongs to professional secrets for reasons as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to whether the duty to submit documents is confidential

(3) Examining in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, each of the specifications cited by the court below is expected to be commenced externally, and there is no room to deem that there is a serious disadvantage to the document holder even if a document is commenced externally in the form of a document prepared in the status of the decision-making. Thus, even if the court below omitted the decision on whether it is a

(4) In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in holding that each document listed in Section 6 (b) of Attached Table 1 falls under a document quoted by the respondent in the principal lawsuit, and thus, the respondent shall submit it pursuant to Article 344(1)1 of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the cited document or omitting judgment, contrary to what is alleged in

C. As to each quoted document listed in Paragraph 8(e) and Paragraph 5 of Attached 1 List 5

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below was just in ordering the respondent to submit all contracts entered into between the merged company and the third-party accounting firm with respect to the merger of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there was no error of misapprehending the legal principles or omitting judgment regarding the requirements of the order to submit documents, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of reappeal.

3. Conclusion

The part of the order of the court below against the applicant regarding the documents indicated in the order shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining reappeals by the applicant and the respondent are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment 1] List of Respondent Documents (application List): omitted

[Attachment 2] List of Documents by Respondents: omitted

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)