A. Background ofthe Case
In this case, theConstitutional Court held that Article 7 of the Resident Registration Act whichdoes not provide a provision concerning the alteration of resident registrationnumbers is incompatible with the Constitution.
The petitioners filed arequest with the heads of their respective local governments to change theirresident registration numbers for the reason that their resident registrationnumbers had been illegally leaked. However, their requests were rejected on thegrounds that the alteration of resident registration numbers is not permittedunder the Resident Registration Act. While the case was pending, some of thepetitioners filed a motion to request a constitutional review of the provisionat issue and then filed a constitutional complaint when the motion wasdismissed; and others filed a constitutional complaint, claiming that theprovision at issue which does not stipulate a procedure for changing residentregistration numbers infringes on their fundamental rights.
B. Summary of the Decision
The ConstitutionalCourt held that Article 7 of the Resident Registration Act infringes on theright to informational self-determination, for the following reasons.
If a residentregistration number is illegally leaked, abused or misused, the relevantindividual’s right to privacy, life, body and property may likely be prone tointrusion. For such reason, the state must thoroughly manage residentregistration numbers and improve and supplement the relevant system to minimizedamage from such offense. Therefore, an absolute prohibition of the alterationof resident registration numbers without consideration of such anticipated harmmay infringe on one’s right to informational self-determination. Even if the statetakes measures to protect information pursuant to the Personal InformationProtection Act, the measures are incapable of completely eliminatingcircumstances where handling, collection, and use of resident registrationnumbers still occur and do not provide specific solutions to harm resultingfrom the exposure which has already occurred. Hence, the measures hardly affordsufficient protection for the people’s personal information. Meanwhile, if asystem which links the newly issued resident registration number with theprevious one is established and used, confusion is unlikely to occur inrelation to the personal identification of a person who has changed his or herresident registration number and on whether the person is the same person whoused the previous one. Also, if a procedure is established under which a personwishing to change his or her resident registration number must meet certainrequirements and the alteration of the number is reviewed by a qualifiedinstitution equipped with objectivity and integrity, this will help blockattempts to abuse the procedure for changing resident registration numbers and reducesocial chaos. Accordingly, Article 7 of the Resident Registration Act violatesthe rule against excessive restriction and infringes on the petitioners’ rightto informational self-determination.
However, if we simplyrule that the provision at issue is unconstitutional on the ground of thelegislative omission, the provision providing the basis for the residentregistration number system itself will be removed. This will lead to a state ofvacuum in law. As the legislature has broad legislative discretion in formingthe system for the alteration of resident registration numbers, we declare thatthe provision at issue is nonconformable to the Constitution but temporarilyapplicable.
Justices Kim Chang-Jongand Cho Yong-Ho stated a dissenting opinion, as follows.
The purpose of theresident registration number system is to promote the convenience of residentlife through the prompt and efficient handling of administrative affairs.Allowing the alteration of an individual resident registration number willundermine the function of personal identification, and this will eventuallyimpede the achievement of such purpose and raise concerns for abuse of registrationnumbers for ill purposes, such as concealment of crime, tax evasion, evasion ofdebt, or identification laundering. Considering these aspects, it is hard toconclude that the provision at issue which does not permit the alteration ofresident registration numbers infringes on the complainants’ right toinformational self-determination.
C. Aftermath of the Case
Some evaluate theCourt’s decision as very positive in that it provided an opportunity to promoteforward-looking policies for the legislature and the administrative branch,which had long adhered to the principle prohibiting the alteration of residentregistration numbers (Chung Pil-Woon and Cho Jae-Hyun, A Critical Summary of Leading Constitutional Decisions in 2015).Due to the development of the internet, personal information was leaked inlarge quantities on several occasions, and concerns about damage from suchleakages led to high demand for the alteration of resident registrationnumbers.
As the Resident RegistrationAct was amended by Act No. 1191 on May 29, 2016, Articles 7-2 through 7-5relating to the alteration of resident registration numbers were newly insertedand entered into force on May 30, 2017. This amendment made it possible toalter a resident registration number under certain conditions.
Under the amendedResident Registration Act, any person may file an application for the alterationof his or her resident registration number if he or she is a person who suffersor is likely to suffer any danger or injury to his or her safety or health dueto the divulgence of his or her resident registration number; a person whosuffers or is likely to suffer any damage to his or her property due to thedivulgence of his or her resident registration number; or a victimized child orjuvenile, a victim of sexual violence, a victim of sex trafficking, or a victimof domestic violence who is likely to be harmed due to the divulgence of his orher resident registration number.