📌 Case Overview

The Korean Supreme Court ruled that posting residents’ real names and building/unit numbers in a KakaoTalk group chat does not violate the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) if the residents had already given prior consent for their data to be used for related purposes.

The case was overturned and remanded (파기환송) for a not-guilty outcome.



—

📌 Facts

Administrative agent A was hired by about 280 apartment residents in Gangnam to handle noise-damage compensation negotiations with a nearby construction company.

Residents submitted written consent forms providing their personal information:

names

building & unit numbers

phone numbers


A created a KakaoTalk group chat for communication.

Between April–November 2022, A posted messages mentioning residents’ real names and building/unit numbers to rebut statements during discussions.

A was charged with violating PIPA for allegedly using personal data beyond the agreed scope.



—

📌 Lower Courts

1️⃣ Trial Court (1st Instance) – Guilty (₩500,000 fine)

Court held A’s posts were outside the purpose of the compensation-negotiation agreement.

Said it exceeded consent given for notifications, announcements, and administrative updates.


2️⃣ Appeals Court – Guilty but Reduced Fine (₩300,000)

Maintained that A’s use of personal data exceeded authorized scope.

Reduced punishment due to excessive severity.



—

📌 Supreme Court Decision

✔ Not Guilty – Case Reversed and Remanded

Supreme Court found residents had implicitly and explicitly consented to their names & unit numbers being used in the group chat.

Personal motivations mixed with official work do not negate prior consent.

Residents themselves:

Did not believe their information was leaked.

Never complained to the management office.

Did not even know a criminal complaint had been filed — as confirmed in written statements.



📌 Key Legal Principle

When residents give prior consent for personal data use related to a shared purpose, using that data within a group chat created for that purpose is not a PIPA violation, even if the communication includes disagreements or rebuttals.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Case-curation/213362