개인신용정보의 범위에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 기본적 상행위 거래정보는 모두 개인신용정보인가? - = Critical review on the scope of personal credit information - Is all the basic commerce transaction information personal credit information? -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The 「Personal Information Protection Act」 should fulfill its role as a general law and basic law for personal information protection. However, Korea's personal information protection legal system was not enacted and amended as the system of laws and regulations was aligned with the general laws, and the ``Personal Information Protection Act'' was newly established while still retaining the laws and regulations made out of order according to the needs of each area. Therefore, there is a lack of system consistency between laws and regulations. The inconsistency of the Personal Information Protection Act system eventually weakens the status of the Personal Information Protection Commission as an independent supervisory body, and reduces the enforcement power of the Personal Information Protection Act. This is because the actual authority and role of the Personal Information Protection Commission as an independent personal information supervisory body may not function properly as laws and regulations for each area are applied first and the guidance and supervision of relevant ministries is given priority. In particular, the scope of credit information under the recently revised 「Credit Information Act」 has been greatly expanded by including 'information on the type, period, content, conditions, etc. of commercial transactions pursuant to Article 46 of the 「Commercial Act」’. Furthermore, simple purchase history information was also included in the scope of credit information. This unreasonable expansion of the scope of personal credit information is making its position as a general law of the 「Personal Information Protection Act」 unclear. As a result, the special systems introduced under the 「Credit Information Act」, namely the 'right to request transmission of personal credit information and my data (personal credit information management) business', were not actually introduced in the 「Personal Information Protection Act」. In spite of that, it can lead to consequences that are implemented in almost all areas of personal information protection. Therefore, 'information on the type, period, content, conditions, etc. of commercial transactions pursuant to Article 46 of the 「Commercial Act」’ should be deleted from the category of credit information and credit information should be limited to transaction information that can be the basis for credit judgment.
In addition, the function of the Financial Services Commission for personal information protection should be unified with the Personal Information Protection Commission. Personal information institutions in each field, such as the Financial Services Commission, not only need to consider the promotion of related industries at the same time, but it is highly likely that they will not be free from the interests or pressures of the relevant administrative departments or related industries. This is because the expansion of the scope of credit information means the expansion of the personal information management and supervision functions of the Financial Services Commission, and the function of the “Personal Information Protection Commission,” an independent supervisory body for personal information protection, may be abnormally reduced. Personal information protection is basically a part to be dealt with in the Human Rights Laws or the Information Laws and this principle should not be damaged through the 「Credit Information Act」 as a special law of the Commercial Act.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 김일환, "현행 개인정보보호법체계상 감독기구 법제정비방안에 관한 연구" 미국헌법학회 28 (28): 219-273, 2017

2 김민호, "행정법" 박영사 2018

3 허영, "한국헌법론" 박영사 2011

4 이인호, "한국의 개인정보보호 수행체계 발전방안 연구" 개인정보보호위원회 2017

5 박영도, "특별법 입법체계 개선방안" 한국법제연구원 2012

6 홍완식, "체계정당성의 원리에 관한 연구" 한국토지공법학회 29 : 459-482, 2005

7 고환경, "정보이동권과 마이데이터산업" 서울대학교금융법센터 (93) : 2019

8 양석진, "정보공개법과 개인정보보호법의 법체계 정합성 고찰" 한국법학회 (33) : 429-454, 2009

9 김서안, "유럽연합과 미국에서의 개인정보이동권 논의와 한국에의 시사점" 중앙법학회 21 (21): 271-310, 2019

10 오길영, "신용정보의 집중과 법적 문제" 법학연구소 (28) : 251-274, 2014

11 정성구, "신용정보법상의 개인정보보호의 문제와 그 개선방향" 한국상사법학회 25 (25): 73-119, 2006

12 금융위원회, "신용정보법 입법공청회 논의내용"

13 금융위원회, "소비자중심의 금융혁신을 위한 금융분야 마이데이터 산업 도입방안" 2018

14 정소민, "소비자신용법제에 관한 연구" 법학연구소 12 (12): 147-180, 2009

15 황태희, "소비자 신용의 규제와 입법에 관한 소고" 행정법이론실무학회 (22) : 185-200, 2008

16 최기원, "상법총칙·상행위법" 삼영사 2015

17 "보험사, 고객 '의료데이터' 상업적 사용 가능해진다"

18 김현경, "방송의 상행위성에 관한 연구" 법학연구원 35 (35): 335-368, 2011

19 금융위원회, "데이터 경제 활성화를 위한 신용정보산업 선진화 방안" 2018

20 박영도, "기본법의 입법모델 연구" 한국법제연구원 2006

21 금융위원회, "금융분야 마이데이터산업 도입방안" 2018

22 오세혁, "규범충돌 및 그 해소에 관한 연구 : 규범체계의 통일성과 관련하여" 서울대학교 대학원 2000

23 개인정보 보호위원회, "국민이 신뢰하는 데이터 시대, 개인정보 보호법 2차 개정으로 선도한다"

24 김민호, "공공부문 개인정보보호법제의 현황과 과제" 한국토지공법학회 37 (37): 207-224, 2007

25 김현경, "개인정보보호제도의 본질과 보호법익의 재검토" 법학연구원 26 (26): 267-297, 2014

26 권건보, "개인정보보호의 입법체계와 감독기구 정비 방안" 한국헌법학회 20 (20): 37-71, 2014

27 김민호, "개인정보보호위원회의 기능과 역할 개선방안" 2012

28 행정안전부, "개인정보보호법 해설서"

29 김경환, "개인정보보호 법제 및 감독기구의 개선방향"

30 김일환, "개인정보보호 법령간 정합성 강화방안" 2018

31 김현경, "개인정보 법체계 정합성 확보를 위한 소고 -금융, 의료, 정보통신 법역(法域)을 중심으로-" 법학연구원 28 (28): 31-69, 2016

32 이인호, "개인정보 감독기구 및 권리구제방안에 관한 연구" 한국전산원 2004

33 "“절대 양보 못해”…금융지주 마이데이터 ‘내전’"

34 "‘짜장면 1그릇 주문’은 신용정보일까? 마이데이터 정보제공 논쟁"

35 "http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/index_en.htm"

36 "[전승재 변호사의 IT 인사이트] 가명정보 결합과 마이데이터"

37 Ross Anderson, "Why Information Security Is Hard–an Economic Perspective" 2001

38 Irene Pollach., "What’s Wrong with Online Privacy Policies?" 50 (50): 103-, 2007

39 Laura Somaini, "The right to data portability and user control: ambitions and limitations" 164 : 2018

40 P. Przemyslaw Polański, "Some thoughts on data portability in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal" 7 : 141-, 2018

41 Alessandro Acquisti, "Privacy and Rationality in Decision Makin" 3 (3): 26-33, 2005

42 Daniel J. Solove, "Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma" 126 : 1880-, 2013

43 Alessandro Acquisti, "Nudging Privacy : The Behavioral Economics of Personal Information" 7 (7): 82-, 2009

44 김현경, "EU의 'GDPR 적정성결정을'을 위한 입법과제" 법학연구원 31 (31): 1-56, 2019

45 Vincent Toubiana, "An Analysis of Google Logs Retention Policies" 3 (3): 3-, 2011