logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.09.28 2018고정1172
개인정보보호법위반
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The facts charged are as follows: Defendant A is the husband of the partnership C, and Defendant A is the partner of the partnership B’s emergency measures.

A person who has been provided with personal information from a personal information processing person shall not use such personal information for any purpose other than the intended one or provide it to a third party.

Nevertheless, during May 2017, the Defendant secured 962 list of union members, who were acquired from the redevelopment association on May 22, 2017, for the purpose of "to review and confirm the feasibility of the meeting of the management and disposal of the rights of landowners, such as land based on the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Law in connection with the progress of the B Housing Redevelopment Development and Improvement Project," and used the following list for the purpose other than the purpose of sending personal information for non-purpose purposes, such as H, Seo-gu, Incheon, Incheon, the domicile of union members G, and the Nam-gu, Incheon, the domicile of union members K, by using the above list.

2. According to the Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement Act (hereinafter “Urban and Residential Environment Rearrangement Act”), owners of land, etc. shall request perusal and duplication in writing specifying the purpose of use, etc., and the head of the association shall comply with such request within 15 days, and owners of land, etc. provided with data following such procedures shall not use or utilize the data for any purpose other than the intended purpose.

This is a "person who has received personal information from a personal information manager" and is also an obligation to bear such personal information pursuant to Article 19 of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Considering such interpretation, it is necessary to determine whether the Defendant constitutes “person who received personal information from a personal information manager” in this case.

arrow