[Plaintiffs (Selected Party), Appellee and Appellant] Korean Teachers and Education Workers' Union and 2 others (Attorneys for the plaintiffs: Law Firm Simin and 1 other)
[Defendant, Appellant and Appellee] Defendant 1 (Attorneys for Defendant 1: Law Firm Seoul Dasol, attorneys Jang Eung-su and 3 others)
[Defendant, Appellant] ○○○ Co., Ltd. (Attorney for the defendant: Attorney Ryu Yong-hyun)
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na67097 dated May 18, 2012
[Order]
All appeals are dismissed. Of the costs of the appeal, the portion arising between the Plaintiffs (Selected Party) and Defendant 2 Company shall be borne by Defendant 2 Company, and the portion arising between the Plaintiffs (Selected Party) and Defendant 1 shall be borne by each party respectively.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal (including the supplementary brief on grounds of appeal submitted after the period for submission of grounds of appeal had expired, to the extent that it supplements the grounds of appeal) are examined as follows.
1. As to the Defendants' ground of appeal that the act of disclosing the information at issue in this case does not constitute an infringement of the rights of the Plaintiffs (Selected Party, hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") and the Selectors
The general personality right derived from the first sentence of Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea (대한민국헌법), which provides for human dignity and worth and the right to pursue happiness, and the right to self-determination of personal information guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution regarding the secrecy and freedom of private life, are the rights of the data subject to decide for himself or herself when, to whom, and to what extent information about himself or herself is to be known and used. Personal information subject to protection under the right to self-determination of personal information may be defined as all information that characterizes the personal identity of an individual, such as the individual's body, beliefs, social status, and status, and that enables identification of that individual, and is not necessarily limited to information belonging to the intimate sphere of the individual, but also includes personal information formed in public life or already disclosed. Moreover, acts such as investigation, collection, storage, processing, and use of such personal information all in principle constitute restrictions on the right to self-determination of personal information (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2003Hunma282, 425 (consolidated), decided July 21, 2005).
According to the judgment below and the record, it can be seen that the information at issue in this case contains content that identifies specific individuals or reveals the union membership status of individuals who joined teachers' organizations and labor unions, such as the name of the institution (school), the teacher's name, the subject taught, and the status of membership in teachers' organizations and labor unions.
In light of the above legal principles, the information at issue in this case constitutes personal information subject to protection under the right to self-determination of personal information, and therefore the act of disclosing this information to the general public is properly deemed to constitute an infringement of the relevant teachers' right to self-determination of personal information. Furthermore, if personal information regarding union membership status as described above is disclosed, members belonging to Plaintiff Korean Teachers and Education Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as "KTU") may withdraw from the union, and non-members may become reluctant to join the union, which could hinder the existence, maintenance, and development of Plaintiff KTU; therefore, the act of disclosing this information to the general public is also properly deemed to constitute an infringement of such rights of Plaintiff KTU.
The judgment below, having reached the same conclusion, is correct, and there is no error of law in misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the infringement of the right to self-determination of personal information, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. As to the Defendants' ground of appeal that the act of disclosing the information at issue in this case is not unlawful
Where the personal interest infringed by the disclosure of personal information without the consent of the data subject conflicts, in relation to a single legal relationship, with the legal interest that may be protected by an expressive act of freely disclosing personal information without the consent of the data subject, the final determination of the unlawfulness of the act must be made by comprehensively considering various circumstances such as whether the individual is a public figure, the public nature and public interest of the personal information, the reasonableness of the purpose, procedure, and manner of use of the collection of the personal information, the necessity of using the personal information, and the nature and content of the interest infringed by the use of the personal information, and by specifically weighing and comparing the interest that may be gained through the protection of the personality right concerning personal information (the interest in non-disclosure) against the interest that may be gained through the expressive act (the interest in disclosure), so as to determine which interest is to be evaluated as superior (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da42430, decided September 2, 2011).
In light of the above legal principles, and considering the following circumstances as recognized by the reasoning of the judgment below and the record: ① the information at issue in this case was requested by Defendant 1, who was a member of the National Assembly at the time, from the then Minister of Education, Science and Technology on the pretext of confirming whether the principals of each school were accurately disclosing information on the status (number of persons) of teachers' membership in teachers' organizations and labor unions pursuant to Article 5 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Disclosure of Information by Education-Related Institutions (교육관련기관의 정보공개에 관한 특례법) and Article 3(1) [Attached Table 1] of its Enforcement Decree, and was then received by Defendant 1, who disclosed it in violation of that purpose; ② the mere fact that a teacher has joined Plaintiff KTU cannot be deemed to directly infringe upon students' right to receive education or parents' right to educate their children, and therefore it cannot be deemed that this information must generally be provided in advance to students and parents; ③ even if there are cases in which the educational content provided by certain teachers who have joined Plaintiff KTU infringes upon students' right to learn or parents' right to educate their children, there is no need to disclose information to other students or parents who neither provide information concerning other teachers who have joined Plaintiff KTU nor request the provision of such information; ④ even if students or parents need to know information concerning whether a teacher in charge of educating a particular student has joined Plaintiff KTU, it cannot be deemed that there is a necessity to widely publicize such information to the outside world; and ⑤ in particular, where information is disclosed via the Internet, the posted information may spread instantaneously and extensively, creating the possibility that serious infringement of legal interests may result therefrom; in light of these circumstances, the legal interest that the Defendants could gain from the expressive act of disclosing the information at issue in this case cannot be deemed superior to the Plaintiffs' legal interest that could be protected by not disclosing it, and therefore, ultimately, the Defendants' act of disclosing the information at issue in this case must be deemed unlawful.
The judgment below, having found to the same effect that the Defendants' act of disclosing the information at issue in this case was unlawful, is correct, and there is no error of law in misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the balancing of interests, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
3. As to Defendant 2 Company's ground of appeal that the calculation of the amount of consolation money is unlawful
With respect to the amount of consolation money for mental suffering and intangible damage incurred as a result of infringement of fundamental rights due to a tort, the court of fact-finding may determine such amount within its own discretion, taking into account all circumstances revealed in the pleadings.
Upon examining the relevant evidence in light of the record, the judgment below's determination regarding the amount of consolation money is within an acceptable range and cannot be deemed significantly unreasonable in light of the principle of equity; therefore, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.
4. As to the Plaintiffs' ground of appeal
Indirect compulsory compensation, once collected from the obligor, is not reverted to the national treasury, but is paid to the obligee and applied to compensate for damages arising from the obligor's failure to perform an obligation to act.
The court below, after finding the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence, determined that since it is clear from the calculation that each amount of indirect compulsory compensation of KRW 283,501 received by the Selectors who applied for the provisional injunction from Defendant 1 exceeds the amount of damages of KRW 100,000 recognized by the court below, each of the Selectors' claims for damages against Defendant 1 who applied for the provisional injunction was extinguished in full, having been offset by each amount of indirect compulsory compensation received by the Selectors who applied for the provisional injunction from Defendant 1.
In light of the above legal principles and the record, the above determination by the court below is correct, and there is no error of law in misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the legal nature of indirect compulsory compensation, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
5. Conclusion
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and of the costs of the appeal, the portion arising between the Plaintiffs and Defendant 2 Company shall be borne by Defendant 2 Company, and the portion arising between the Plaintiffs and Defendant 1 shall be borne by each party respectively; it is so decided as per the Order by the unanimous consent of the Justices participating in the deliberation.
[Attachment] List of Selectors: Omitted
Justice Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice), Min Il-young, Park Bo-young, Kim Shin (Justice in charge)