Author Kyu Yub Lee and Jun Hyun Eom Series 20-05 Language Korean Date 2020.11.20
By comparing those precedents of the CJEU with Korean laws and precedents, the report provides the following implications. First, the passive consent was interpreted as invalid even if it was in accordance with Korean laws. Besides, the precedent is also in the same position, which shows important criterion was whether the data subject could objectively confirm the intention of the data subject. However, since Korean laws are less specific than the EU GDPR, it seemed necessary to supplement them. Second, the transfer of personal data to third countries or international organizations was allowed only when the data subject agreed. Otherwise, the EU GDPR recognized various other reasons besides the consent of the data subject. It is time that the supervisory authorities of Korean law should consider whether to allow other basis for the transfer of personal data or not. Last, there was a ruling that the right to be forgotten has not yet been introduced into Korean law. The right to correct and delete in Korean law is recognized only if the information is incorrect after the exercise of the right to read, and there is a difference from the right to be forgotten. Discussions on whether to introduce the right to be forgotten are needed.
|Sale Price||7 $|