민사집행법상 채무불이행자 명부의 열람·복사 규정에 대한 헌법적 고찰 - 헌법재판소 2010. 5. 27. 2008헌마663 결정의 평석을 중심으로 -

The article 72, clause 4 of a civil execution act prescribes a person of default on an obligation list so that anyone can do reading and copying. The same rule shows a character of an insincere creditor and gives the loss that seems to be his trust's damage and libel and carries out a debt, it also plans security of business for a commoner. Therefore, a purpose of a legislation on the same rule is proper. And, it contributes to objective realization of a legislation on the same rule with a little that anyone had reading and a copy of a person of default on an obligation list in the same rule. Thus, the same rule is not violated a conformity of means in the principle of balancing test. But, the same rule prescribed to copy nobody a person of default on an obligation list successively after the original of a person of default on an obligation list was deleted in a reason of repayment other, and there can be the copy thing. In this case, a creditor comes to suffer big damage in his trust and honor and brings failure for, social life and economic life. The danger that the right to self-determination of private information of a creditor is infringed by the same rule grows big. Because the same rule is violated a the principle of minimum infringement and the principle of the balance of benefit and protection of the law in the principle of balancing test, it will be said to be an unconstitutional rule. Hence, it is desirable to revise the same rule in the future to copy the list when the copy thing is disposed of after the original of a person of default on an obligation list was deleted as in the article 72, clause 4 of a German civil proceedings act or so that only reading of a person of default on an obligation list is enabled.