Calls grow to protect privacy in civil lawsuits

This image is unrelated to the story. / Gettyimagesbank

By Kim Jae-heun

Legislators are seeking to protect the personal information of plaintiffs in legal documents, to prevent possible retaliation by defendants.

Rep. Yoon Sang-jick of the main opposition Liberty Korea Party (LKP) submitted a revision bill to the Civil Proceedings Act to a National Assembly committee, Tuesday, to remove plaintiffs' personal information, such as resident registration number, phone number and address, from written complaints and written judgments.

Unlike criminal suits, a civil suit requires such information under the current law.

Many plaintiffs have demanded the revision to protect themselves from retaliation.

“Many victims withdraw their complaints out of worry they could be subject to retaliation by the defendants. We have to prevent secondary damage that comes from the disclosure of a plaintiff's private information by revising the law,” Rep. Yoon said.

Yoon's proposal came after a 23-year-old woman posted a message on an online community in October titled “I'm scheduled to be killed in revenge on Aug. 5, 2019.”

The woman had been raped by the manager of a coffee shop where she had previously worked. The manager, who was found guilty and sentenced to four years in prison, is set to be released next year.

The victim also won a civil lawsuit she filed to claim compensation, but when she saw the written judgment contained all her personal information, she became afraid for her life.

“My home address and 13-digit resident registration number were sent to the assailant, too. I changed my name out of worry he could retaliate against me when he is freed and I also wrote a will because I could be killed at anytime, anywhere,” she wrote.

The woman also called for the amendment to the law in a petition on Cheong Wa Dae's website and received over 257,000 signatures in support.

Rep. Park Ju-min of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea had suggested a similar amendment in January last year, but the Legislation and Judiciary Committee at the Assembly neglected to pass it, saying such a revision could restrict a defendant's rights.