"Commission's Litigation Team: 'We Will Actively Respond Even If SKT Files an Administrative Lawsuit'"

A Marathon Six-Hour Meeting Fueled by Gimbap

"The plenary session on August 27, when the disposition was decided, was highly unusual in that it continued until 8 p.m. It started at 2 p.m. and proceeded without any breaks, so the committee members and staff had a simple meal of gimbap instead of a separate dinner time. Both law firms representing SK Telecom (SKT) were present, leading to numerous questions and answers, and the litigation team also attended to provide legal opinions. Legal and accounting experts made every effort to ensure that the investigation and disposition were lawful and appropriate in every procedural and substantive aspect."

An SK Telecom store in downtown Seoul.

If SKT files an administrative lawsuit in the future, the litigation team of the Personal Information Protection Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission) plans to respond actively according to procedure. The litigation team has been involved in the review process since the investigation stage. We believe we will be able to effectively explain to the court that the disposition was made lawfully and receive confirmation of this."

The Commission's litigation team shared these thoughts regarding the Commission's decision on August 27 to impose an administrative fine of 134.791 billion won and a penalty of 9.6 million won on SKT for causing a "hacking incident." The administrative fine of 134.791 billion won is the largest ever imposed for a violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

Launched in April, the Commission's litigation team is exclusively responsible for litigation and serves as the Commission's legal control tower. With the 2023 amendment to the Personal Information Protection Act expanding the scope of dispositions and increasing the number of lawsuits filed by companies challenging these actions, the role of the litigation team has grown significantly. We met with the litigation team to discuss these changes. The answers were mainly provided by team leader Ryu Seungkyun (38, 2nd bar exam), with additional explanations from team members.

- What has changed since the launch of the litigation team?

"By handling litigation professionally as a 'team,' we have achieved greater work efficiency. Before the team's launch, different personnel from each investigation division were responsible for each case, which sometimes led to shortcomings in information sharing. Now, we respond in a more systematic manner.

You can think of it as having a clear point of contact. Previously, legal affairs officers and investigators were responsible for both administrative processing and litigation, which was overwhelming at times. Now, the litigation team can directly communicate requirements and actionable items to case handlers, and this established system is a major advantage.

Court rulings related to the Commission can have a significant impact on policy. I believe that responding at the team level has improved the quality of litigation."

- The impact of the Commission's decisions and dispositions is considerable.

"The Commission's work is directly related to the daily lives of the public. The Commission's dispositions also serve to present legal principles. Unlike fair trade, where legal principles are more established, the Commission's legal review and litigation are crucial in new fields where legal frameworks are not yet fully formed. It is important to respond systematically at the litigation stage to gain recognition of legality from the courts and to build trust among companies and the public in the Commission's decisions and dispositions."

- What efforts are being made to balance 'personal information protection' and 'technological innovation'?

"The Commission operates with the overarching principle of protecting personal information without hindering innovation. For artificial intelligence (AI) training, a large volume of data is required, and obtaining consent from every individual can be an obstacle to building services. With the 2023 amendment to the Personal Information Protection Act, whereas previously it was sufficient to check whether consent was obtained, now it is necessary to weigh the legitimate interests of the business operator against the rights of the data subject, making legal judgment much more important. The litigation team also reviews legal principles and conducts litigation accordingly."

- The Commission's sanctions against 'big tech' companies are also notable.

"Unlike other administrative agencies, the Commission actively responds to overseas 'big tech' companies such as Google and Meta. While large law firms mobilize vast human and material resources to respond, the Commission's litigation team consists of only six members, including the team leader, so we are doing our best with limited resources. Nevertheless, we are responding to litigation more actively than any other agency.

Personal information cases often require reviewing international precedents. The Personal Information Protection Act has the same general principles across countries. Since big tech companies provide the same services worldwide, cases of sanctions in the EU and other countries can serve as references for domestic decisions. During investigations and lawsuits, business operators frequently cite international cases, and the Commission also reviews these cases independently."

Seo Hayeon, Legal Times Reporter

※This article is based on content supplied by Law Times.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.