개인정보자기결정권과 개인정보처리의 자유 충돌의 사법적 해결

The defendant offered a paid service to consumers who are seeking lawyers, by using the ‘network score' between lawyers, calculated based the scoring system which gives certain grades when any two lawyers’ careers coincides with each other. The plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendant, demanding to ban the paid service, insisting that this service infringes the right of information privacy. The Supreme Court explained that if one’s personal interest interfered by making public of one’s information without one’s consent collides with the opposite's interest of the freedom of speech, the court has to compare and weigh them against each other, and decide the final illegality of the defendant's action depending on the result. Based on this premise, the majority opinion ruled that this service illegally infringed the plaintiffs' right of information privacy, considering the followings; private and personal character of these 'network scores'; the possibility of distortion in the process of calculating; the fear of interfering plaintiffs' interest and the public interest; the extent of public value pursued by using this service. However, I disagree with the majority opinion on the following grounds. First, the 'network score' deserves low protection in terms of information privacy because this is based on the information made available to the public voluntarily by the plaintiffs. This score should not be regulated without a reasonable cause brought upon by the freedom of speech, since it enhances the right of information consumers have to be informed of the lawyers they seek to hire. Secondly, the majority of ruling opinions emphasized the concern that this 'network score' would aggravate false suspicions about the fairness of prosecutors' investigations and judicial proceedings, and hinder the orderly market of lawyers. However, when two separate private interests irrelevant from a certain public interest collide with each other, the court must restrain from letting the public interest intervene with the weighing process between the two private interests. In case the court declares to be the primary decision maker of the public interest based on the political grounds, it would go against the constitutional principle on the separation of powers.