Earticle

초록

영어

This article introduces Korean and U.S. cases on the protection of right of privacy. It reviews a number of U.S. privacy cases based on Dean William L. Prosser’s categorization: appropriation, unreasonable intrusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light in the public eye. It also selected and examined Korean privacy cases, which correspond to Dean Prosser’s four privacy torts. Korean courts have used various terms for the protection of privacy, such as ‘right to name,’ ‘right to picture,’ ‘protection of private life,’ ‘protection of privacy,’ ‘right to control personal information,’ etc. Korean courts and scholars seems to have used the terms ‘privacy’ and ‘private life’ as having almost the same meaning. Korea Supreme Court and some scholars say that right of privacy consists of passive right to prohibit acquisition or disclosure of personal information and active right to control the use of personal information. However, I am of the opinion that the latter right is not symmetrical with the former one, but only part of the former right in a special circumstances. That is, the circumstances in which an institute, whether it is public or private, have collected personal information in a large scale. Dean Prosser’s four privacy torts are basically illegal acquisition, use, and disclosure of personal information. And these three basic torts are also found in the tort of trade secret. This means that the right of privacy is located at the interface between tort and intellectual property. Thus, studies on the origin and history of the protection of privacy, and on the development of its legal theory can suggest appropriate solutions for the protection of trade secret and publicity, and for the right to disclose work in Copyright Act. Furthermore, it could suggest an optimal level of protection for a new kind of personal information in the future, and prevent the information from over- or under-protection.

목차

I. 서론
 II. 피고의 이익을 위한 이용 appropriation
  1. 인식가능성
  2. 피고의 이익을 위한 이용
  3. 한국의 판결
 III. 사적 영역 침범 unreasonable intrusion
  1. 사적 영역의 의미와 정보취득수단
  2. 한국의 판결
 IV. 사적 정보의 공개 public disclosure of private facts
  1. 공중에 대한 공개
  2. 통상의 감정을 가진 합리적인 사람에게 매우 불쾌할 것
  3. 표현의 자유와의 관계
  4. 한국의 판결
 V. 공중을 오인하게 하는 행위 false light in the public eye
  1. 침해유형
  2. 헌법상의 한계
  3. 한국의 판결
 VI. 결론
 참고문헌
 

키워드

프라이버시 사생활 자기정보 명예훼손 표현의 자유 퍼블리시티 privacy personal information publicity freedom of expression defamation.

저자

• 박준우 [ Junu Park | 서강대학교 법학전문대학원 교수. 법학박사 ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물