개인신용정보의 범위에 대한 비판적 고찰 - 기본적 상행위 거래정보는 모두 개인신용정보인가? -

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.