bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếpSupreme Court Decision 2011Da24555, 24562 Decided May 16, 2013 about Damages

Main Issues and Holdings

[1] bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp meaning of leakage of personal information protected by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc., and in a case where personal information was managed and controlled by a communications service provider and was not accessed or approached by a third party, whether it can be viewed that personal information was leaked simply because bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp third party was in a situation where he/she was capable of accessing personal information stored by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp provider (negative)

[2] In a case where “C” et al., who are members of “B” corporation (whose mobile communication service provider is “A”) received a temporary ID and password from B for bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp purpose of website system inspection, then following bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp inspection B did not delete bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp ID and password, resulting in a situation where a member’s personal information was transferred from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp server if his/her mobile phone number was entered into bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp aforementioned website, to which C et al. sought damages from B et al. for leaking personal information, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp case holding that C et al.’s personal information was not in a situation where they were accessible to third parties for not being under B’s management and control

Summary of Decision

[1] Leakage of personal information protected by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. refers to a situation where personal information is no longer under bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp relevant communications service provider’s management and control, causing its contents to be accessible to a third party. Thus, a case where a certain personal information is under a communications service provider’s management and control without actually being accessed or approached by a third party does not necessarily reach bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp point where personal information is not under bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp service provider’s control, and thus, accessible to a third party, even if bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp service provider’s technological and management protection measures were insufficient and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp personal information stored by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp provider was in a situation where it was accessible to a third party.

[2] “C” et al. who are members of “B” corporation (whose mobile communications service provider is “A”) received a temporary ID and password from B for bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp purpose of website system inspection, then following bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp inspection B did not delete bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp ID and password, leaving bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp members’ personal information vulnerable to being transferred from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp server at bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp input of his/her mobile phone number into bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp aforementioned website. Against this backdrop, C et al. sought damages from B et al. for leaking personal information. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court held that C et al.’s personal information was not accessible to third parties merely for not being under B’s management and control, on bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp following grounds: entering C et al.’s mobile phone number into bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp aforementioned webpage is bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp only way bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp information can be leaked; before any mobile phone number is entered, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp personal information remains stored in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2G server and cannot be approached; B used its management and control authority to block bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp website and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp server’s interoperability, thus eliminating bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp possibility of access to and transmission of C et al.’s personal information; and thus, although bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp website and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp server kept interoperability in this case where no input of phone number in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp webpage is confirmed, it cannot be viewed that C et al.’s personal information were lost from Defendant B’s control and became accessible to third parties.

Reference Provisions

[1] Articles 3(1), 28(1), and 32 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. /

[2] Articles 3(1), 28(1), 32 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

Article 3 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Responsibilities of Providers and Users of Information and Communications Services)

(1) Every provider of information and communications services shall contribute to protection of rights and interests of users and enhancement of abilities to use information by protecting personal information of users and providing information and communications services in a sounder and safer way.

Article 28 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Protective Measures for Personal Information)

(1) Every provider of information and communications services or similar shall, when it handles personal information of users, take bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp following technical and administrative measures in accordance with bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp guidelines prescribed by Presidential Decree to prevent loss, theft, leakage, alteration, or mutilation of personal information:

1. Establishment and implementation of an internal control plan for handling personal information in a safe way;

2. Installation and operation of an access control device, such as a system for blocking intrusion to cut off illegal access to personal information;

3. Measures for preventing fabrication and alteration of access records;

4. Measures for security by using encryption technology and other methods for safe storage and transmission of personal information;

5. Measures for preventing intrusion of computer viruses, including installation and operation of vaccine software;

6. Other protective measures necessary for securing safety of personal information.

Article 32 of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Compensation for Damages)

Every user may, if he/she suffers any damage caused by a violation of any provision of this Chapter by a provider of information and communications services or similar, claim bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp provider of information and communications services or similar to compensate for such damage. In such cases, a provider of information and communications services or similar may not be discharged from liability, unless it proves that there was no intentional act nor negligence on its part.

[This Article wholly amended by Act No. 9119, Jun. 13, 2008]

Plaintiff-Appellant As indicated in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiff List (Law Firm Eutteum, Attorney Park Jin-shik, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Appellate LG Uplus Co., Ltd. et al. (Attorneys Son Ji-yol et al., Counsel for defendant-appellate)

Judgment of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court below Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na 119131, 119148 decided February 10, 2011

Disposition All appeals are dismissed. bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp costs of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp appeal are assessed against bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs.

Reasoning

bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp grounds of appeal are examined (to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp extent of supplement in case of any supplementary appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Leakage of personal information protected by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. refers to a situation where personal information is no longer under bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp relevant communications service provider’s management and control, causing its contents to be accessible to a third party. Thus, a case where a certain personal information is under a communications service provider’s management and control without actually being accessed or approached by a third party does not necessarily reach bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp point where personal information is not under bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp service provider’s control, and thus, accessible to a third party, even if bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp service provider’s technological and management protection measures were insufficient and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp personal information stored by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp provider was in a situation where it was accessible to a third party.

According to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp facts finalized by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court below and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp records of this case, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp following facts are acknowledged. On October 2005, in order to inspect whether bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp M-shop website (“M-shop”) system, interoperable with bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2G server of Defendant corporation LG Uplus (“Defendant LG Uplus”), is functioning normally, corporation Codinus (“Codinus”) — Defendant LG Uplus’ Contents Provider (CP) — temporarily provided corporation Feelink (“Feelink”) with Codinus’ ID and password “○○○○○○” which is interoperable with bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp said 2G server; using bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp ID and password, Feelink confirmed that bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2G interoperability system was successfully set up, but failed to delete bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp ID and password after inspection, ending up prolonging bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp interoperability between M-shop and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2G server; bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp aforementioned interoperability is organized so that when a certain mobile phone number is entered into M-shop’s “Access Telephone Information” page and sent to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2G server, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp mobile phone user’s personal information, such as resident registration number, date he/she signed up for bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp phone service, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp mobile phone model, and mobile phone service provider, is transmitted back from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2G server to M-shop, which can then be viewed by analyzing bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp URL transmitted on March 21, 2008, when Non-Party analyzed M-shop’s “Access Telephone Information” page, made an “Access Mobile Telephone Information” page on his server (URL address omitted), and when bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp resident registration numbers of 583 members of Defendant LG Uplus appeared on screen on March 25, 2008, Defendant LG Uplus had Codinus change bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp password so as to make bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp said personal information inaccessible from M-shop’s “Access Telephone Information” page; bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs are members of Defendant LG Uplus service; apart from Plaintiff 130 who entered his mobile phone number in M-shop’s “Access Telephone Information” page and had his personal information transmitted, there were no other confirmed cases where any of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ mobile phone number was entered into M-shop’s “Access Telephone Information” page and his/her personal information were transmitted from Defendant LG Uplus’ 2G server to M-shop.

According to these factual relations, entering Plaintiffs’ mobile phone number into M-shop’s “Access Telephone Information” page and receiving bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp personal information from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2G server is bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp only way bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp information can be leaked; before any mobile phone numbers are entered, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp personal information remains stored in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2G server and inaccessible; Defendant LG Uplus used its management and control authority to block bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp interoperability between M-shop and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2Gserver, thereby eliminating any possibility of access to and transmission of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ personal information; even if M-shop and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2G server maintained interoperability, given bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp absence of any confirmed instance of inputting phone number into M-shop’s “Access Telephone Information” page, it cannot be viewed as a situation where bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ personal information was lost from Defendant LG Uplus’ control and became accessible to third parties.

bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp lower court’s determination to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp same purport is justifiable. Contrary to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp allegations in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp legal principles on bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp leakage of personal information stored by a communications service provider, nor by reasoning insufficiently.

2. Regarding grounds of appeal Nos. 2 to 5

A. As examined above, it cannot be deemed that bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ personal information was leaked through M-shop’s “Access Telephone Information” page. Therefore, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp grounds of appeal arguing that bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court below did not acknowledge bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ emotional distress due to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp leakage is without merit, as it is based on bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp premise that bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ personal information was leaked.

It may be true that bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Defendants failed to perform their duty to manage and take technological protective measures or to secure safety of personal information, or trespased Defendant educational foundation Soongseon Academy’s 2G server by Codinus provision of M-shop with bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp CP ID and password, its failure to delete them immediately, and there by leaving M-shop and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2G server interoperable for a period. Mowever, inasmuch as bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ personal information leakage through M-shop’s “Access Telephone Information” page cannot be acknowledged, nor can it be viewed that bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ privacy and freedom of personal life were infringed upon. Therefore, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp lower court’s determination not to grant bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ claim for damages to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp same purport is justifiable. Contrary to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp allegation in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp grounds of appeal, there were no errors of violation of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp rules of evidence, insufficient or contradictory reasoning, or omission of judgment.

B. While it can be argued that Plaintiffs 130 and 214’s personal information were leaked inasmuch as their resident registration number was accessed via bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Non-Party’s “Access Mobile Telephone Information” page, they did not appear to have suffered emotional distress to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp extent of requiring monetary compensation, considering bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp following circumstances known from bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp body of evidence duly admitted by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp court below: Plaintiffs 130 and 214 are bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Non-Party’s friends, and Plaintiff 130 first notified bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Non-Party that resident registration numbers were accessible on bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp “Access Mobile Telephone Information” page; and Plaintiff 214 even filed a petition with bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp investigative agency for bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Non-Party. Therefore, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp lower court’s determination to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp same purport is justifiable. Contrary to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp allegation in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp legal principles on emotional distress caused by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp leakage of personal information, or by violating bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp rules of evidence, or bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp pleading principle.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 6

According to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp reasoning of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp judgment below, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp lower court rejected bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendant LG Uplus provided bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ personal information to Codinus without consent, thereby infringing upon bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ freedom and privacy of personal life and causing emotional distress, on bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp following grounds: although it is true that Codinus received bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp ID and password giving it access to Defendant LG Uplus’ 2G server, and that bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp server was interoperable with bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2G server, rendering vulnerable bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp Plaintiffs’ resident registration numbers stored in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp 2G server to a possible exposure to Codinus, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp said identifying numbers were not in fact exposed to Codinus.

Upon examination of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp matter in light of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp records, bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp lower court’s such determination is justifiable and acceptable. Contrary to bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp allegation in bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp legal principles on rights infringement or emotional distress caused by a non-consensual provision of personal information, or by violating bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp rules of evidence.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp costs of bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp appeal are assessed against bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by bóng đá hôm nay trực tiếp assent of all participating Justices.

[Appendix] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

Justices

Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)

Shin Young-chul

Kim Yong-deok

Kim So-young (Justice in charge)