[Attachment 1] [Attachment 1 (Law Firm Gyeongsung, Attorneys Geum Tae-op et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Korea Federation of Banks (Attorney Jeon Soo-soo, Counsel for plaintiff)

July 22, 2010

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall delete the information in attached Form 3 against each of the above plaintiffs listed in attached Table 1 list, and the defendant shall pay to each of the above plaintiffs 1,00,000 won per month from the base date of each claim listed in attached Table 2 to the date the defendant deleted the above information, and with regard to each of the above money, 20% per annum from the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the date the defendant deleted the above information.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs, as the parties, were declared bankrupt under the former Bankruptcy Act or the current Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “DRB”), are those who were granted immunity from the court under the former Bankruptcy Act or the current Debtor Rehabilitation Act. The Defendant is an incorporated association established for cooperation among financial institutions and centralized management and assessment of credit information, and is a credit information collection agency registered with the Financial Services Commission under Article 25(1) of the Use and Protection of Credit Information Act (hereinafter “Credit Information Protection Act”).

(b) Keeping and providing information on immunity;

Before the enforcement of the current Credit Information Protection Act on October 2, 2009, the Defendant: (a) was a credit information collection agency under the former Credit Information Protection Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9617, Apr. 1, 2009; hereinafter “former Credit Information Protection Act”); (b) prior to the full amendment by Presidential Decree No. 21765, Oct. 1, 2009; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of Credit Information Protection Act”); (c) the Enforcement Rule of the said Act (wholly amended by Ordinance No. 885, Oct. 1, 2009; hereinafter “former Enforcement Rule of Credit Information Protection Act”); (d) the former Credit Information Business Supervision Regulations (wholly amended by Act No. 2009-56, Oct. 2, 2009; hereinafter “former Credit Information Protection Act”); and (e) reported the information that the Plaintiffs was granted immunity pursuant to the former Credit Information Protection Act and the former Enforcement Decree of the Credit Information Protection Act (amended by Act No. 1762, Jul. 1, 20097.

C. Details of the relevant statutes

(1) The former Credit Information Business Supervision Regulations

Article 11 (Registration, Change, and Management of Information) (1) Financial institutions under Article 9 (6) of the Decree shall process credit information subject to centralized management and utilization prescribed in Article 9 (5) of the Decree in a form suitable for centralized management and use, and shall register with the centralized credit information collection agency under Article 17 (2) of the Act.

(2) The specific criteria for registration and use of credit information centrally managed and utilized by a centralized credit information collection agency under paragraph (1) shall be as specified in attached Table 9> The Credit Information Council under Article 17-2 of the Act shall determine the specific type of credit information to be registered with a centralized credit information collection agency within the scope of attached Tables 9> and (4), management period

(3) The period during which credit information may be registered or modified to a credit information collection agency as referred to in Article 17 of the Act shall be within thirty days from the date on which such cause occurs.

(4) Information which may cause disadvantages to the owner of credit information from among the credit information registered to credit information collection agencies and credit information dealers shall be managed within the following periods from the date of occurrence of grounds for

1. Information which fails to repay debts within the agreed period of time, shall not exceed a maximum of one year, but shall not exceed a maximum of one year: Provided, That where the credit information dealer calculates credit rating, or manages it for the processing of credit information, the maximum of five years;

2. The maximum of five years for any information in the column of financial order in attached Table 2>

(5) Where seven years have elapsed from the date on which a credit information collection agency and credit information dealers fail to repay their debts within the agreed time limit, excluding information on bill delivery transactions registered, and information in the column of financial order in attached Table 2 to the Enforcement Decree, the seven years shall be deemed the date on which the grounds for cancellation of the relevant information have occurred, and no registration shall be made after the period prescribed in

1. Seven years from the date on which any reason for registration arises;

2. Date on which the period of extinctive prescription expires for information related to claims; and

(2) The former Credit Information Management Rules

Article 13 (Special Records Information) (1) Special records information shall be as follows, and detailed matters, such as concentration and management, shall be in accordance with the management standards:

8. Customer who is granted immunity due to bankruptcy from the court, etc.;

Article 20 (Period for Keeping and Preservation of Credit Information) (3) The period for recording and keeping credit transaction information pursuant to the "fit, etc." shall be within the period of not paying debts within the maximum of one year, and five years for information disturbing financial order, and other detailed matters shall be governed by the management standards

(4) The credit transaction information, information on the disturbance of financial order, and public recorded information under the "Annual, etc." which do not cause any cause for cancellation shall be the date on which the cause for cancellation elapses seven years after the date on which the cause for cancellation occurs, and detailed matters shall

Credit Information Management Standards

6. Special Record Information

8. Discharge of a claim for discharge from a customer 1201 who is granted a decision of discharge due to bankruptcy by the court, etc., or elimination at the same time with the cancellation of 77 years after the date of occurrence of the registration (amended on July 11, 06).

[Reasons for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Article 18(2) of the former Credit Information Protection Act and Article 10(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the relevant credit information should be deleted within five years from the date on which the grounds that may cause disadvantages to an owner of credit information cease to exist. This provision provides that if the grounds that caused disadvantages to an owner of credit information cease to exist, all the credit information derived from such grounds shall be deleted.

B. Article 11(4) of the former Regulations on Supervision of Credit Information Business, which was enacted by the Financial Services Commission, provides that information unfavorable to an owner of credit information is classified into “information which fails to repay debts within the agreed period” and “information which disturbs financial order.” The decision to grant immunity is reasonable, and it constitutes “information which fails to repay debts within the agreed period,” as it is premised on nonperformance. Furthermore, the above provision provides that “information which fails to repay debts within the agreed period” shall be deleted within one year from the date on which the cause of nonperformance arises. Since the cause of nonperformance, which caused the decision to grant immunity, was removed through the decision to grant immunity, the decision to grant immunity should also be deleted within one year from the date on which the decision to grant immunity is made in accordance with the above provision.

C. The former Credit Information Management Rules, established by the Credit Information Council at the time, classify immunity information as “special recording information” without any grounds in violation of the above Acts and subordinate statutes and have it kept for seven years. Accordingly, the Defendant committed an illegal act in which immunity information was kept without deleting immunity information during the above period, and the Plaintiffs suffered damage, such as the closing of normal economic activities. D. Furthermore, even if the current Credit Information Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree stipulate the criteria for the management of immunity information under the current Credit Information Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, the illegal act by the Defendant before the enforcement of the same Act is not legitimate, and thus, the Defendant is liable to delete the Plaintiffs’ immunity information, such as the written claim

3. Determination

(a) Applicable provisions on the management criteria for immunity information;

(1) The parties' assertion

Article 10(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Credit Information Protection Act provides that "Any credit information business operator and any credit information collection agency shall delete any old credit information that may cause disadvantages to any credit information subject under Article 18(2) of the Act, as prescribed by the Financial Services Commission, within five years from the date on which the cause of such disadvantage arises, shall be removed from the subject of possession or centralized management." Accordingly, with respect to the provisions directly applicable to the management and deletion of immunity information under the former Credit Information Business Supervision Regulations enacted by the Financial Services Commission, the plaintiffs claim that Article 11(4) of the same Regulation shall be applied, as seen earlier, within one year from the date on which immunity is granted, and that Article 11(5) of the same Regulation shall be interpreted within one year from the date on which the cause of cancellation occurs if a specific cause for cancellation does not arise with respect to registered credit information. Thus, the defendant asserts that Article 11(5) of the same Regulation shall be construed within seven years from the date on which the exemption becomes due and within one year from the date on which the exemption becomes due.

(2) Whether Article 11(4) of the former Credit Information Business Supervision Regulations is applied

In light of the following circumstances and the overall purport of the evidence and arguments as seen earlier, namely, ① information that can determine the credit rating and credit transaction capacity of an owner of credit information under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Credit Information Protection Act, Article 2(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2(3)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, is clearly stated as independent credit information separate from non-performance information, and as a matter of interpretation, the decision of immunity in relation to declaration of bankruptcy seems to be included. ② The decision of immunity in relation to declaration of bankruptcy has a strong effect of exempting from all debts to bankruptcy creditors except for dividends under bankruptcy proceedings. Since such decision of immunity is a system that recognizes exceptions to the Capital Market Order and the Civil Act for the rehabilitation of bankruptcy debtors and their return to society, the information of immunity has a value as an independent credit information that is distinct from the extinction of debts due to simple default, repayment, extinctive prescription, etc. 3. In light of the literal interpretation of the Act’s text and text, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the credit information disclosure agreement does not constitute grounds for exemption.

(3) Whether Article 11(5) of the former Credit Information Business Supervision Regulations is applied

Furthermore, under the premise that Article 11(5) of the former Credit Information Business Supervision Regulations applies to “information on which a credit information is not repaid within the agreed date” or “information on disturbing financial order,” the above provision is apparent in its language that the credit information constitutes “information on which a credit information is not repaid within the agreed date” or “information on disturbing financial order.” Thus, it is difficult to apply the above provision to the information on immunity for the same reason as described in paragraph (2) of the above Article on the ground that there is no room for application of the foregoing provision to the information on immunity for the same reason.

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, Article 11(4) and (5) of the former Regulations on Supervision of Credit Information Business cannot be applied as the management criteria for immunity information, and unlike the current regulations on supervision of credit information business, it seems that there is no provision directly stating the period of management of immunity information under the former Regulations on Supervision of Credit Information Business. Meanwhile, Article 11(2) of the former Regulations on Supervision of Credit Information Business stipulates that the credit information council under Article 17-2 of the former Regulations on Supervision of Credit Information Business shall determine the specific type and management period of credit information to be registered in a centralized credit information collection agency within the scope of attached Table 9> Article 11(4) of the former Regulations on Supervision of Credit Information Business has no content about the deletion and management period of immunity information under attached Table 9 and Article 11(4) of the former Regulations on Supervision of Credit Information Business, and it is reasonable to view that the Credit Information Council, based on Article 11(2) of the former Regulations on Supervision of Credit Information Business, may grant a decision on the management criteria of information autonomously within the scope not inconsistent with Article 10(2) of the Enforcement Decree

B. Whether the former credit information management rules violate superior statutes

(1) Determination on the grounds for revoking the decision to grant immunity

(A) The parties' assertion

Article 10(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Credit Information Protection Act provides that credit information that may be at a disadvantage shall be deleted within five years from the date on which the ground that the reason that the credit information was at a disadvantage arises. (1) The plaintiffs asserted that the reason that the reason that the decision of immunity was at a disadvantage is not fulfilled, and that the reason that the decision of immunity was exempted from the obligation due to the decision of immunity was immediately terminated. (2) The defendant asserts to the purport that the reason that the credit information and the decision of immunity were at a disadvantage should be distinguished, and that the reason that the termination of the obligation

(B) Determination

In light of the following, as seen earlier, ① specified the relevant statutes as independent credit information distinct from overdue credit information of the court or the decision of declaration of bankruptcy of the court; ② the decision of immunity is a system that recognizes exceptions to the principles of the capital-based market economy and the Civil Act, and thus, the decision of immunity has the value as independent credit information distinct from default, repayment, and extinction of obligations due to extinctive prescription, etc., the decision of immunity should be distinguished from the information on default; and the decision of immunity should be removed from the information on non-performance; while the information on non-performance becomes extinct by the decision of immunity; and the reason why the decision of immunity results in disadvantage due to extinction of obligations upon the decision of immunity, it is reasonable to deem that the decision of immunity itself is managed as separate credit information. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the decision of immunity immediately becomes grounds for

(2) Whether the statute, which regards 7 years from the date of immunity as the date of occurrence of grounds for revocation, is unlawful

However, the former Credit Information Protection Act provides that a credit information company may manage the relevant credit information for a certain period from the time the grounds for revocation arise, and the information on immunity is difficult to present the grounds for revocation due to its nature. In this situation, the credit information company's credit information management rules cannot be concluded to be unlawful in terms of legislation, and there is no other evidence that the former Credit Information Company's credit information management rules cannot be concluded to be unlawful in violation of superior laws and regulations, and no other evidence exists (the former Credit Information Company Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Credit Information Company Act) that the date seven years have elapsed from the date the grounds for revocation occurred, by analogy or mutatis mutandis applying the provision that the information on immunity is deemed to be the date the grounds for revocation occur, even if the former Credit Information Company's credit information management rules set the management standards under the former Credit Information Management Act as the date on which the grounds for revocation occur, which is the date on which the decision on immunity arises, can be seen as the date on which the reduction of the above period can be discussed.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant's act of managing information to delete immunity information within one year from the date seven years have elapsed since the date on which the plaintiffs' immunity exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption exemption is illegal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge Yellowified (Presiding Judge) For the highest number of hydrogens