All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2017Da219232 Decided April 13, 2023 【Damages (Etc.)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Requirements for an agreement on exclusive international jurisdiction, excluding the jurisdiction of the court of the Republic of Korea and designating a foreign court as a competent court, to be valid [2] Purpose and purport of the former Act on Private International Law Where the other party creates profits by using information on the age, gender, location, and behavioral pattern of a customer, whether the customer may be excluded from the customer contract in accordance with Article 27(1)1 of the former Act on Private International Law on the sole ground that there is no price such as a usage fee, etc. that the customer should directly pay to the other party to the contract (negative in principle) Even if the parties reached an agreement on international jurisdiction, where the agreement was reached before the occurrence of a specific dispute and the details of the agreement also correspond to an agreement on exclusive jurisdiction, not an agreement on additional jurisdiction, whether such agreement is effective in relation to the customer contract (negative), and in such a case, whether the customer may file a lawsuit against the other party with the court in the country where the habitual residence of the consumer is located pursuant to Article 27(4) of the former Act on Private International Law despite such agreement on international jurisdiction (affirmative) [3] Whether the principle of Article 25 of the former Act on Private International Law regarding the choice of the applicable law is likewise applicable to a customer contract (affirmative) Where the parties of a customer contract choose the law of a country other than the one where the habitual residence of the consumer is located as the applicable law, whether the application of the mandatory provisions of the country where the habitual residence of the consumer is located may be excluded (negative) Whether Article 30(2) and (4) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection are included in the mandatory provisions (affirmative) [4] Where a provider of information and communications services or similar whom a user requests to allow the user to peruse, or to furnish with, details of which the provider of information and communications services or similar has used personal information of the user or furnished it to a third party has any justifiable ground, whether the provider may limit or deny the perusal or provision thereof after notifying the user of the said ground (affirmative) Where a provider of information and communications services or similar who should observe other foreign statutes or regulations as well as those of the Republic of Korea refuses to access or provide such information on the grounds that foreign statutes or regulations limit the release of the related information, whether any justifiable ground can be seen to exist immediately on the sole basis of the fact that foreign statutes and regulations including such details exist (negative), and in such a case, whether the details of foreign statutes and regulations may be considered in determining whether any justifiable reason exists (affirmative) Matters that should be considered when determining whether a provider of information and communications services or similar has taken all necessary measures according to Article 30(4) of the former Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection Measures that should be taken by a provider of information and communications services or similar where it is recognized that any justifiable reason exists | |
