[1] In a case where restriction of the right to control one's own information is necessary, such as conflict with the third party's fundamental right, the criteria for determining the scope of protection of the right to control one'

[2] In a case where information on the progress of a lawsuit that is disclosed and personal information of an attorney-at-law were processed by re-processing them by each attorney-at-law, whether such re-processing information constitutes self-information of an attorney-at-law (affirmative)

[3] In a case where an applicant, who is an attorney, filed a claim against the respondent company that provides attorney's personal information, etc. via the Internet for the prohibition of the provision of information service, the case dismissing the applicant's application for the part of the information on the performance of the lawsuit, although the applicant accepted the application, on

[1] In general, Article 10 of the Constitution provides that "all citizens shall have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness." Article 17 of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall not be infringed on privacy." Thus, a private person shall have the right to control one's own personal information, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution, which includes the right to manage and control one's own information. However, in cases where restriction is necessary, such as in a case where there is a conflict with a third party's fundamental right, the right to control one's own information shall also vary depending on the type, character, purpose of collection, form of use and processing method, etc. of information or the degree of infringement on one's own right to privacy. Therefore, it is inevitable to determine the scope of protection by balancing it with the third party's fundamental right. Meanwhile, Article 21 (1) of the Constitution provides that the freedom of speech, i.e., freedom of expression, the freedom of expression, traditional freedom of expression, formation of free expression or freedom of opinion, and thus, formation and free expression or freedom of opinion.

[2] The attorney's personal information is clear that it falls under the private sphere of the attorney, and the attorney's personal information in the lawsuit itself is about the progress of the case where the attorney acts as a litigation agent in a trial procedure within the public domain, and even if it is information within the public domain, it is reasonable to see that it falls under the attorney's own information from that time, if it has characteristics as information indicating the contents of the attorney's performance by reprocessing it for

[3] In a case where an applicant, who is an attorney, filed a claim against the respondent company that provides attorney's personal information, etc. via the Internet for the prohibition of the provision of information service, the case dismissing the applicant's application for the part of the information on the performance of the lawsuit, although the applicant accepted the application, on the part

[1] Articles 10, 17, 21(1) and (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea / [2] Articles 10, 17, and 21(1) and (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea / [3] Articles 10, 17, and 21(1) and (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea

Abstein (Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Romarket Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Park Jae-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. Subject to the condition that the Claimant (Appointed Party) deposits gold 300,000 won for the Respondent (300,000,000) or submits a payment guarantee consignment contract document with the above amount as the insured amount:

A. The respondent shall not provide information and communications services using the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the designated parties, including the applicant (appointed party) on the website of the respondent "(Internet Address omitted)" and offer information and communications services using it. The respondent shall not provide all services of providing information, such as providing points to the designated parties based on the subjective evaluation criteria of the respondent, including the service providing the number of cases represented by the designated parties, including the applicant (appointed party) and the results of the case classified based on the case name, the service providing the expertise index and its counterpart calculated by giving points according to the number of cases represented by the designated parties including the applicant (appointed party) and the results of the case, and the service providing the connection index calculated by giving points according to the subjective evaluation criteria of the respondent.

(b) The enforcement officer shall publicly notify the purport of the above order in an appropriate manner.

2. The remaining claims of the applicant (appointed party) are dismissed;

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts, one of which shall be the applicant (appointed party) and the remainder shall be borne by the respondent, respectively.

1. The respondent shall not display (Internet Address omitted) information on the respondent's Internet homepage of "(Internet Address omitted) information listed in the separate sheet No. 2, including the applicant (Appointeds) and the designated parties listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the information listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and the information and communications services using the above information.

2. The execution officer shall publicly announce the purport of the said order in the proper manner.

3. Where the respondent violates the obligations set forth in paragraph 1, the respondent shall pay 10,000,000 won per day of the violation day to the applicant (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

According to the evidence submitted in the record, the following facts are substantiated:

A. The designated parties indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “applicants”) including the applicant (Appointeds) are attorneys-at-law qualified under the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the respondent operates the Internet homepage “(Internet Address omitted)” (hereinafter “instant website”).

B. The respondent, through the litigation information search service of the Supreme Court homepage, collected information on about 35 million won between 1993 and 2005 including the case name, legal representative, paper country result, etc., acquired litigation information listed in [Attachment 1] paragraph (1) of attached Table 1, which was calculated by providing statistics, and provided information on the winning rate, expertise index, etc. for each applicant by classifying the area based on the case name, etc. (hereinafter “litigation information of this case”). The contents are as follows (However, with respect to attorneys less than 3 years of opening business among the designated parties in the list of the first designated parties and the designated parties listed in the list of the second designated parties from December 18, 2005 to December 18, 2005, without disclosing the information on the number of cases and expertise index in which litigation representatives have been conducted as proxy).

(1) In the case of a criminal case, only the number of cases in which the petitioner acts as a legal representative is indicated.

(2) In a case other than a criminal case, where the result of the remaining cases is indicated as the winning, performance recommendation, or recognition of the plaintiff, the case in which the plaintiff's failure, rejection, or dismissal is lost, the case in which the plaintiff's withdrawal, withdrawal of the lawsuit, withdrawal of appeal, or withdrawal is indicated as a non-acceptance, and the case in which it is indicated as a part of winning, or as a corruption lawsuit is classified as a separate area unrelated to the winning failure, and the case is classified as a separate area unrelated to the winning failure, and the case is indicated as a part of winning, a percentage calculated by dividing the sum by 1 and 0.5 points by the number of cases representing the plaintiff's winning, performance recommendation, or recognition, and the number of

(3) In accordance with the criteria of paragraph (2) above, an expert evaluation opinion of “AA” is provided to the applicants within the upper 20%, and an expert evaluation opinion of “AA” is provided to the applicants within the upper 30%, and to the applicants within the upper 30% for the applicants, based on the number calculated by giving 40 points in winning, partial winning, and daily corruption points, 30 points in winning, 20 points in winning, and 10 points in losing, and the number calculated by giving 10 points in winning, for each area classified by the respondent.

C. The respondent provided personal information (hereinafter “the instant personal information”) to the applicants listed in attached Table 1 List No. 2, which was acquired due to an unforeseen circumstance on the homepage of this case, free of charge. Based on the above information, three points (in the case of Gyeonggi-do, 1 point) in the case of persons from the same Si/Gun with a population of less than 300,000 persons based on the number of population in the place of birth, 20 points in the case of high school graduates, 10 points in the case of high school graduates, and 10 points in the case of university graduates, and the points calculated by granting points based on the place of origin, academic background, and major career, and accordingly, provides services for fee by calculating the connection index among legal professionals.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The applicant is against the applicant and the applicant's right to control one's own information. The respondent's service provided on the website of this case without any consent from the applicant, thereby impairing the applicant's reputation and hindering the applicant's business. Thus, the applicant is seeking a provisional disposition order such as the purport of the application in order to prevent significant damage.

B. As to this, the respondent is not only the information already disclosed, but also the information of this case contains the contents of the applicant's activities in the public domain, and it is not possible to exercise the right to control the applicant's own information. The respondent also has the right to access the above information in a way that does not go against the current law, based on the right to access the information corresponding to the essential elements of the right to know, and it cannot be deemed unlawful to reprocessing the information acquired and post it on the website of this case. Thus, the claim of this case is groundless.

3. Determination

A. Generally, Article 10 of the Constitution provides, “All citizens shall have dignity and value as human beings and have the right to pursue happiness.” Article 17 of the Constitution provides, “All citizens shall not be infringed on their privacy.” Thus, a private person shall have the right to control one’s own personal information, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution, which includes the right to manage and control one’s own information. However, in cases where restriction is necessary, such as in a case where there is a conflict with a third party’s fundamental right, the right to control one’s own information may vary depending on the type, character, purpose of collection, form of use and processing method, etc. of information or the degree of infringement on one’s personal right to privacy. Therefore, it is inevitable to determine the scope of protection by balancing it with a third party’s fundamental right in a specific situation. Meanwhile, Article 21(1) of the Constitution provides that the freedom of speech, namely, the freedom of expression, that is, the right to freely express opinion or freedom of opinion, and thus, the right to freely express opinion or freedom of opinion can only be formed and freely expressed and disclosed.

B. As to this case, it is reasonable for the respondent to obtain the litigation information and personal information of this case already disclosed on the basis of the right to know, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution, and even though it is difficult to readily conclude that there is a violation of the current law in acquiring the above information of the respondent only with the supporting materials submitted in the record, if there is room for infringing another person's right to control one's own information in the course of providing information and communication services by reprocessing it, the above right and reputation should not be infringed.

However, it is clear that the personal information of this case belongs to the private sphere of the applicant, and even if the applicant is about the progress of the date of the case in which the applicant performed a legal representative in the trial procedure belonging to the public domain, it is reasonable to view that it constitutes the applicant's own information from that time when the applicant has characteristics as information indicating the details of the performance of the applicant by reprocessing it by the applicant. Therefore, in order to assess whether the respondent has expertise in part of the multi-time case, without infringing the applicant's honor or rights, through statistical processing of the above information without infringing upon the applicant's honor or rights, it should be determined by calculating the winning rate, or through this, it should be determined whether the criteria for reprocessing the above information are reasonable, objective, and generally accepted, as well as the criteria and methods for statistical processing, and the applicant can seek the prohibition by asserting and explaining acts beyond such limits.

Therefore, the following circumstances, which are explained by the above facts supporting the facts, that are, the respondent has won all of the plaintiff's winning, performance recommendation, and recognition, against all of the plaintiff's failure, rejection, and dismissal. All of the cases in dispute settlement, mediation, withdrawal from appeal, withdrawal from appeal, and continuing to exist shall be classified into a non-performance book, and the winning rate, expertise index, etc. are calculated based thereon. As such, it is difficult to view that the criteria for classifying the winning, failure, and non-performance book as mentioned above are appropriate in the situation where the criteria and statistical processing methods that are generally accepted are not established as well as the rational and objective processing of litigation information, and there is no possibility that the respondent may cause arbitrary statistics because of the applicant's failure to reflect his actual failure in the lawsuit in the above classification, and the respondent can not be viewed as having distorted the applicant's personal information that is calculated by giving points based on his major academic career to the applicant, and there is no possibility that the applicant's service applicant's disclosure and non-performance of such information will not be able to reflect the applicant's's legal expertise or non-specific expertise.

C. Furthermore, the applicants seek prohibition against the acts of posting or providing all information and communications services using the instant litigation information and personal information to the respondent. On the records, the instant litigation information itself is a public information provided to the relevant parties on the Korean Supreme Court homepage that it is difficult to regard the applicant's own information even before reprocessing it. The respondent has reasonable, objective, and social reasonableness of the above information, as well as the criteria and statistical methods generally accepted, and reprocessing it or providing it to a third party by using the above information as it belongs to the area of right to know guaranteed by the Constitution. However, even if it is an infringement on the applicants' right to control their own information, it is difficult to conclude that the type, character, purpose of collection, form, and method of processing of the above information violates the applicants' rights to the extent that it should be prohibited by a provisional disposition. Even if the use without the applicants' consent is unlawful, it is difficult to deem that the applicants' request for provisional disposition is unlawful, such as the above personal information provided through the Korean Bar Association and media companies, and it is difficult to consider that it is difficult to order the applicants to preserve the aforementioned damages or provisional disposition.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the application of this case shall be accepted as a condition of providing security for the reason that the need for the right to be preserved and the need for the preservation has been substantiated within the scope stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article. The remaining applications are dismissed as it is without merit due to lack of vindication of the right to be preserved or the need for the preservation, and it is so decided as per Disposition (the part seeking the issuance of an indirect compulsory performance order in preparation for breach of duty is likely to achieve the main purpose of the application of this case upon the issuance of the provisional disposition order as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, and the applicants may seek the issuance of the

Judges Song Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)