팬데믹 이후, 알권리 범위 재고찰 — 공무원에 의한 개인정보 유출사례를 중심으로 —

The study aims to examine the appropriateness of scope on right to know. In the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, our society have instigated this notion of right to know to ensure safety of each individuals and society itself. The divulgence of personal information related to infectious diseases was primarily carried out by controllers on official duties. In response, this researcher examined cases of personal information infringement by public officials during the MERS outbreak and the COVID-19 pandemic, raised questions about some cases that recognized civil servants' right to know for family safety. As a result of the study, the Court’s judge seems like judging legal interests by relying on situational logic, such as different levels of punishment depending on the spread of infectious diseases. Some defendants claimed that the documents should be disclosed to the public quickly rather than protected as confidential, through a case in which public officials divulged COVID-19 cases’ personal information to Internet community sites by the defendants. If the Court sets a precedent for applying the right to know verbally through precedents, it is likely to cause exhaustive controversy over the topography of the right to know whenever the community claims the right to know for its own benefit. Furthermore, this researcher pointed out that will be increase confusion in our community as it is believed that continuing flexible legal interpretations of the right to know in the smart media era with high cognitive sensitivity to personality rights.