Assessment of the Internationally Mandatory Status of the Rights to Access, Rectification, and Erasure of Personal Information: Focusing on Supreme Court Decision 2017Da219232

Supreme Court Decision 2017Da219232 and lower court rulings have upheld that Article 30 of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (ICNA) does not qualify as an internationally mandatory rule under Article 7 of the former Act on Private International Law (PILA). Nevertheless, in light of the ICNA provision’s integration into the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) in 2020 and the whole amendment of the PILA in 2022, it is clear that the legal principles from the case in question cannot be directly applied to Articles 35 and 36 of the current PIPA. Accordingly, this essay examines the criteria for identifying internationally mandatory rules under Article 20 of the PILA, corresponding to Article 7 of the former PILA, and undertakes an independent assessment to evaluate the internationally mandatory status of the provisions in question. Ultimately, this essay suggests the enactment of an extraterritorial application provision in the PIPA that draws on the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and Japan’s Act on the Protection of Personal Information as references. This would solidify the internationally mandatory status of the PIPA provisions, thereby ensuring legal certainty regarding personal information protection.