Supreme Court says evidence submission may be lawful act

The Supreme Court said that submitting financial transaction records or personal information to a court during litigation may constitute a justifiable act under the Criminal Act, even if it technically violates financial secrecy or privacy laws. The ruling came in a decision delivered Feb. 26 regarding a case involving alleged breaches of the Financial Real-Name Transaction and Secret Guarantee Act and the Personal Information Protection Act.

The high court held that such submissions are not contrary to social order when made to prove necessary claims or exercise the right of defense against criminal charges, negating illegality under Article 20 of the Criminal Act which covers justifiable acts performed in the course of duty or social convention.

To determine whether an act is justifiable, judges must consider the circumstances and purpose of collecting the data, whether the amount provided was the minimum necessary, and if measures like de-identification were taken. Key factors also include the nature and sensitivity of the data, the degree of infringement on legal interests, and the existence of alternative means to obtain the evidence.

The decision stemmed from a case where a defendant, acting as an attorney in two separate civil lawsuits, was charged with leaking personal information. The attorney had submitted bank transaction details of one client obtained through a second lawsuit, along with income certificates and transaction records of another client, to refute claims in the first case. Both underlying lawsuits involved wage and retirement benefit claims against the same employer, sharing common issues regarding employment contracts and work performance.

The Supreme Court found that since the attorney legally obtained the documents and the cases shared major issues, using the data to challenge the credibility of the opposing party's claims was a legitimate part of litigation. The court noted that the submitted records corresponded to the disputed employment periods and did not contain sensitive information likely to significantly infringe on private life. Furthermore, because the recipient of the data was the court itself, the harm to the individuals involved was deemed minimal.

The Supreme Court broke the previous judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court for retrial, emphasizing that objective and rational judgment is required by weighing all specific circumstances.