[1] In a case where an employee who manages personal information divulges the collected personal information against the intent of the owner of the relevant information, the standard for determining whether the data subject caused mental damage to compensate for consolation money

[2] In a case where Gap corporation established and managed a database of the personal information of customers who joined the customer service center as a member of the main oil-related bonded card, used it to which Gap corporation operated the customer service center entrusted with the operation of the customer service center by Gap corporation's employees Byung et al., delivered or copied the customer information of Eul corporation's management team employees, including others, in collusion with others, and delivered or copied it to the storage media such as DVD, and provided the storage media in which the customer information was stored for the purpose of using it through the press, the case holding that it is difficult to view that there was a mental damage which could be paid as consolation money to others

[1] In a case where an employee who manages personal information leaks the collected personal information against the intent of the owner of the information, the determination shall be made on an individual basis based on a case-by-case basis, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the type and nature of the leaked personal information, the type and nature thereof, whether the owner of the information could be identified due to the divulgence, whether the leaked personal information was perused by a third party, and whether the leaked personal information was perused by a third party or not, whether the leaked personal information was spread to any extent, whether there was additional infringement of legal interests, whether the leaked personal information was likely to be infringed on, the status of the manager of the personal information and the specific circumstances of the leaked personal information, and what measures were taken to prevent the occurrence and spread of damage caused by the divulgence of personal information.

[2] The case holding that in a case where Gap corporation established and managed a database of customers who joined a storage device and operated the customer service center by using the database and transferred or reproduced the customer information such as name, resident registration number, address, telephone number, and e-mail address of Eul corporation - which is entrusted with the operation of the customer service center by Gap corporation - and operated the customer service center in collusion with others - and transferred or copied such information to Eul corporation - which is stored in the storage device such as DVD by reporting the leakage of the personal information through the media, and provided the media with the storage device where the personal information was stored for the purpose of using it for a group action, the case held that since the personal information was leaked by Byung and the computers used for the storage device and editing work from the persons related to the case in which the personal information was stored, it is hard for others to view that the personal information was leaked or copied in the process of prior work, and that it was hard for others to view that the personal information was leaked or copied, and that there was no other specific type of damage to the victim or the victim of the personal information.

[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 et al. and 2,200 (Attorney White-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant] LLC Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Yoon Yong-pon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na111478, 111485, 111492 decided June 24, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal as to whether mental damage has occurred

Where an employee who manages personal information disclosed the collected personal information against the intent of the owner of the relevant personal information, the issue of whether the subject of information caused a mental damage to compensate for consolation money shall be determined on an individual basis of a specific case, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the type and nature of the leaked personal information, the identification of the subject of information due to the divulgence, the likelihood of access by a third party, the possibility of access to the leaked personal information, the spread of the leaked personal information to any extent, the possibility of additional infringement of legal interests due to the divulgence of the personal information, the status of the personal information manager and the specific circumstances of the divulgence of the personal information, and the occurrence and spread of damage caused by the divulgence, and other various measures to prevent the occurrence and spread of damage caused by the divulgence of the personal information.

The lower court’s factual basis was as follows. ① Nonparty 1’s personal information stored in Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 1’s personal information stored in Nonparty 6’s off-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-door-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face-to-face (hereinafter “Defendant 1”).

According to these facts, ① The instant personal information was leaked by Nonparty 1 and was delivered or reproduced to the accomplices and Nonparty 5 for the purpose of making a e-mail request via the editing process, and subsequently, was leaked to the media-related persons, etc. for the purpose of mass litigation. However, since the personal information of this case was leaked to the media-related persons, all of the computers, etc. used for the storage media and editing work were confiscated, submitted voluntarily, or destroyed from the related persons of this case, and ② Nonparty 1, etc., who conspired to commit the instant crime, planned the sale of the instant personal information to the attorneys or the attorneys-at-law, it was difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ personal information of this case was leaked or copied in the process of collecting the personal information of this case, and it was difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ personal information of this case was leaked or copied for the purpose of checking the personal information of this case, and it was difficult to view that the Plaintiffs’ personal information of this case was leaked or copied for the purpose of using the media-related persons’ personal information of this case.

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that it is difficult to consider that the plaintiffs suffered mental damage due to its stated reasoning, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

The gist of the plaintiffs' remaining grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court below that held that the risk of collecting and using personal information was caused against the plaintiffs' will is unlawful since all storage media containing personal information leaked due to the divulgence of personal information of this case were seized or destroyed, or that the judgment of the court below was unlawful. However, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal, and further, even if the judgment of the court below is examined in light of the records, it does not err in the violation of the rules of evidence and the relevant legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)