(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.07.24 2019가단62972

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.07.24 2019가단62972

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Defendant B and C shared with the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) KRW 1 million and their related thereto from April 1, 2017 to November 29, 2019.

Reasons

1. Claims for damages arising from Defendant B’s violation of the Personal Information Protection Act

A. Defendant B, who infringed on the right to self-determination of personal information of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties, was provided with the above personal information for the purpose of withdrawing a public hearing related to the “J Environmental Impact Assessment” by being aware of the fact that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the public officials of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province provided the name, address, contact information, date of birth, etc. in the Fri Affairs Office located in G on March 1, 2017, and the Fri Affairs Office located in G on March 1, 2017.

Defendant B was issued a summary order on August 1, 2018, with the Jeju District Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 2532, on which Defendant B knew of the fact that I, a personal information manager, provided personal information without obtaining any separate consent from the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties, and received such personal information for an unlawful purpose, and the summary order became final and conclusive around that time.

(A) According to the aforementioned facts, Defendant B’s act of receiving personal information with the knowledge of the fact that the personal information manager provided the personal information without the consent of the subject of information in violation of the Personal Information Protection Act constitutes an act of infringing the right to self-determination of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties.

B. First of all, whether the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the appointed parties suffered damages, the Plaintiff (Appointeds) sought damages due to the tort caused by the cause of the instant claim, but did not specify the specific contents of the damages.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff (Appointed party) is not recognized as having no content about material damage, and the part concerning mental damage is judged as follows.

The fact that the right to self-determination of personal information has been infringed is just a mental damage to the individual.

유사 판례

-대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2018다219406 판결

-대법원 2015.10.15 2014다77970

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2018.06.22 2018고정84

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2021.02.02 2020고정453

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.06.03 2014가단34549