TITLE	Supreme Court Decision 2014Da235080 Decided August 17, 2016¡¼Return of Unjust Enrichment¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] Meaning of ¡°personal information¡± subject to protection by the right to self-determination of personal information, and whether personal information generated in public life or made public is included (affirmative) Whether acts such as investigating, collecting, storing, handling, and using personal information constitutes a limitation on the right to self-determination of personal information (affirmative in principle) [2] In the event that an act claimed to be infringing or limiting the right to self-determination of personal information pertains to the collection and provision of personal information, which had already been disclosed upon an individual¡¯s consent, for a profitable purpose without obtaining a separate consent from the individual, whether the act of information handling can readily be deemed unlawful solely on the criteria for determining the unlawfulness of the act and solely on the basis that the personal information manager did so for a profitable purpose (negative) [3] Whether an individual¡¯s separate consent is required as to collecting, using, providing, etc. disclosed personal information within the objective scope of consent given by the individual (negative), and whether not obtaining consent constitutes a violation of either Article 15 or 17 of the Personal Information Protection Act (negative) Standard for determining whether the relevant personal information collected, used, provided, etc. falls within the scope of consent given by the individual [4] In a case where a legal information website operator (¡°Defendant¡±) collected personal information (e.g., photo, name, gender, date of birth, occupation, place of work, educational background, and career) of a professor of law at a public university (¡°Plaintiff¡±) via the said department of law¡¯s homepage, etc., and subsequently, provided the collected information for a fee via its website under the ¡°Legal Professionals¡± section, the case holding that the Defendant¡¯s act can neither be viewed as unlawful to the effect of infringing the Plaintiff¡¯s right to self-determination of personal information, nor constitutes a violation of either Article 15 or 17 of the Personal Information Protection Act

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2016Hu663 Decided August 18, 2016 ¡¼Revocation of Registration (Trademark)¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2014Da5333 Decided August 17, 2016¡¼Damages, etc.¡½