[Plaintiff(s) (Selected Party), Appellee and Appellant] Korean Teachers and Education Workers' Union and 3 others (Attorneys for the plaintiffs: Law Firm Ilhyeon and 2 others)
[Defendant, Appellant and Appellee] As listed in the attached list of defendants. (Attorneys for the defendants: Law Firm KCL, Attorney Ahn Young-ryul and 3 others)
[Defendant, Appellant]
[Judgment Below] Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na64887, decided October 10, 2014
[Order]
All appeals are dismissed. Of the costs of appeal, the portion arising between the Plaintiff(s) (Selected Party) and Defendant 10 shall be borne by Defendant 10, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff(s) (Selected Party) and the remaining defendants other than Defendant 10 shall be borne by each party respectively.
[Reasoning] The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding the first ground of appeal of the remaining defendants other than Defendant 10 (hereinafter referred to as the "remaining defendants") and Defendant 10's ground of appeal that the information at issue in this case is information subject to disclosure and that the act of disclosing it was not unlawful
Where the personality-related legal interest infringed by disclosing personal information without the consent of the data subject conflicts, in relation to a single legal relationship, with the legal interest protected as an expressive act of freely disclosing personal information without the consent of the data subject, the final determination of whether such act is unlawful must be made by comprehensively considering various circumstances, including 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 personal information, the necessity of using the personal information, and the nature and content of the interests infringed by the use of the personal information, and by specifically weighing the interest gained through protection of the personality right concerning personal information (the interest in non-disclosure) against the interest gained through the expressive act (the interest in disclosure), and determining which interest is to be evaluated as superior (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da42430, decided September 2, 2011; Supreme Court Decision 2012Da49933, decided July 24, 2014, etc.).
In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the court below determined that the legal interest that the defendants could gain from the expressive act of disclosing the information at issue in this case could not be said to be superior to the legal interest of the Plaintiff(s) (Selected Party, hereinafter the "Plaintiffs") and the selectors that would be protected by not disclosing such information, and accordingly concluded that the defendants' act of disclosing the information at issue in this case was unlawful.
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, this determination by the court below is justified as being in accordance with the aforementioned legal principle, and there is no error, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, of failing to conduct the necessary examination and thereby misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the scope of information subject to disclosure under the Act on Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies (공공기관의 정보공개에 관한 법률), the scope of protection of fundamental rights, and the weighing of interests in the conflict of fundamental rights.
2. Regarding the second and third grounds of appeal of the remaining defendants, and Defendant 10's ground of appeal that the court below erred in the legal principles concerning the occurrence and scope of damages and failed to conduct necessary examination
A. The general personality right derived from the first sentence of Article 10 of the Constitution, 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 concerning the secrecy and freedom of private life, is the right of the data subject to determine for himself or herself when, to whom, and to what extent information about himself or herself is to be disclosed and used. Personal information subject to protection under the right to self-determination of personal information may be said to be all information that characterizes an individual's personality, such as the individual's body, beliefs, social status, and identity, and that enables the identification of that individual, and is not necessarily limited to information belonging to the individual's intimate sphere, but also includes personal information formed in public life or already disclosed. Furthermore, all acts of investigating, collecting, storing, processing, and using such personal information constitute, in principle, a restriction on the right to self-determination of personal information (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da49933, decided July 24, 2014; Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2003Hun-Ma282, 425 (consolidated), decided July 21, 2005, etc.).
For the reasons stated in its judgment, the court below rejected the defendants' argument that, since personal information formed in public life or already disclosed is also subject to protection under the right to self-determination of personal information, the defendants' act could not be deemed not to constitute an infringement of the right to self-determination of personal information merely because the information concerned teachers, or because the data subject had previously disclosed the information himself or herself, or because a disclosure act by another person against the will of the data subject had already existed; and further held that even if the data subject had, in certain cases, an intention to disclose the information based on his or her own free will, disclosure by another person at a time and in a manner not determined by the data subject himself or herself constitutes an infringement of the right to self-determination of personal information; and thus rejected the defendants' argument that it could not be said that the Plaintiffs and the selectors suffered damages or that a new legal interest was infringed as a result of the disclosure of the information at issue in this case.
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, this determination by the court below is justified as being in accordance with the aforementioned legal principle, and there is no error, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, of failing to conduct the necessary examination and thereby violating the rules of logic and experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the occurrence of damages.
B. Regarding the amount of consolation money for mental suffering and intangible damage caused by infringement of fundamental rights through a tortious act, the court of fact may determine such amount at its own discretion, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings.
Examining the relevant evidence in light of the record, the determination of the court below concerning the amount of consolation money falls within an acceptable range and cannot be deemed remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity; therefore, there is no error, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, of failing to conduct the necessary examination and thereby violating the rules of logic and experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the scope of damages.
3. Regarding the Plaintiffs' grounds of appeal
A. Regarding the allegations of misapprehension of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence and empirical rules in connection with the recognition of joint tortious act, omission of judgment, misunderstanding of legal principles, and omission of judgment on the primary claim
For the reasons stated in its judgment, the court below determined that the remaining defendants adopted the method of "disclosure jointly posted by the National Assembly members of the ○○○ Party" and, having agreed to jointly post the information at issue in this case on each of their respective websites, carried this out accordingly, thereby tolerating and executing each other's acts as part of their own acts; therefore, the acts of the remaining defendants could be evaluated as a single act as a whole, and the remaining defendants carried out such overall act by dividing the roles among themselves; and further, causation was recognized between each of the above acts and the resulting infringement of rights, as well as subjective common relation among them, and thus determined that a joint tortious act was established among the remaining defendants. The court below then determined that, since the Plaintiffs sought payment of money from each of the remaining defendants on the premise that no joint tortious act was established among the remaining defendants, and sought payment of money from each of them severally in the event that a joint tortious act was established among the remaining defendants, the defendants were liable to pay damages severally.
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, the above determination by the court below is justified, and there is no error, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, of violating the rules of logic and experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, omitting judgment on the Plaintiffs' arguments, or misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the requirements for establishing a joint tortious act.
B. Regarding the allegations of misapprehension of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and failure to conduct necessary examination concerning the amount of damages
As noted above, the determination of the court below concerning the amount of consolation money falls within an acceptable range and cannot be deemed remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity; therefore, there is no error, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, of failing to conduct the necessary examination and thereby violating the rules of logic and experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the amount of damages.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and of the costs of appeal, the portion arising between the Plaintiffs and Defendant 10 shall be borne by Defendant 10, and the portion arising between the Plaintiffs and the remaining defendants shall be borne by each party respectively; it is so decided by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices, as set forth in the Order.
[[Attachment 1] List of Defendants: omitted]
[[Attachment 2] List of Selectors 1: omitted]
[[Attachment 3] List of Selectors 2: omitted]
Justice Kim Chang-seok (Presiding Justice), Lee Sang-hoon, Cho Hee-dae, Park Sang-ok (Justice in Charge)