Abstract

The consistency between the 「Personal Information Protection Act」 and other laws related to personal information is an issue. It is necessary to investigate the relationship between the 「Personal Information Protection Act」 and the Credit Information Act and between the Personal Information Protection Act and the Location Information Act. As a problem of systematic and consistent support for the protection of the rights and interests of the data subject, it is difficult to confirm the inconsistency of applicable laws and support organizations for rights relief when rights relief is necessary. It is necessary to amend the law on the subject and scope of application of the Personal Information Protection Commission, which has the general supervision of ʻpersonal information protectionʼ. It is necessary to establish a senior supervisory body to perform the role of managing and supervising all workplaces that process personal information. The hierarchical hierarchy of supervisory bodies should be rearranged, and senior supervisory bodies should be set up to separate them by sector. Supervisory body should be performed personal information protection through compliance with personal information protection principles, receipt of reports on personal information infringement notices and handling of complaints, cooperation between personal information processors and consignees, and mutual support and cooperation with the Personal Information Protection Committee. According to the revision of the Credit Information Act, similar or overlapping contents to the 「Personal Information Protection Act」 were changed to apply the 「Personal Information Protection Act」, but there are some differences in the contents of the two laws. While the Credit Information Act includes statistical and industrial research on the use of pseudonymous information, the 「Personal Information Protection Act」 has no explicit regulations, so there is a difference in interpretation. In addition, the reason for obtaining the consent of the information subject under the Credit Information Act, exceptions, and the format of the consent form are stipulated differently from the 「Personal Information Protection Act」, causing confusion. It is difficult to confirm the inconsistency of the applicable law and the organization supporting the relief of rights when remedies are applied. When personal information is leaked to credit information companies, excluding commercial enterprises and corporations, it is stipulated that the Financial Services Commission has jurisdiction. It is necessary to improve the subject and scope of application of the Personal Information Protection Committee, which has the general supervision of ʻpersonal information protectionʼ. In order to resolve the confusion in the application of personal information, the 「Personal Information Protection Act」 should be basically applied, and the Personal Information Protection Committee should perform professional and systematic supervision in each area. After deleting provisions similar to the 「Personal Information Protection Act」 in the Credit Information Act, make the 「Personal Information Protection Act」 apply as the basic law, and stipulate only the provisions requiring exceptions in the Credit Information Act.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call