The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) The lower court determined as follows: (a) The term “personal information” under the Personal Information Protection Act refers to information pertaining to a living person, which can identify an individual through images, etc. (Article 2 subparag. 1); (b) the term “personal information files” refers to the collection, creation, storage, search, use, provision, etc. of personal information (Article 2 subparag. 2); (c) the term “personal information files” refers to the collection of personal information systematically arranged or organized according to certain rules so that personal information can be easily searched (Article 2 subparag. 4); (d) the term “personal information processing person” refers to the individuals, etc. who manage personal information personally or via another person to operate the files for the purpose of interfering with his/her duties (Article 2 subparag. 5); and (e) the Defendant, an apartment management manager, is a person operating the file of personal information to process a large quantity of images of a meeting, etc.; and (e) the Defendant, without the consent of each subject of information, can be deemed to have given separate consent of each subject of information at the meeting’s meeting’s meeting’s meeting minutes; (iii) the instant video management of information.