[Seocho-dong Legal Talk] "The way he looks at men"... Marriage Information Company Leaked University Alumni Information

"Ivy League Alumni Also Find Standards Strict but Satisfied with Twice-Monthly Meetings"
Allegations of Disclosing Alumni Information Such as Academic Background, Religion, and Membership During Interview Process
First Trial Imposes 5 Million Won Fine Each on Company CEO and Corporation

"The personal information such as name, educational background, and membership status with the company is only supposed to be provided to the men who are the matchmaking counterparts, right? Have you ever thought that this information would be provided to other women?" (Prosecutor)

"I never thought so at all." (Witness)

On November 15th last year, in a courtroom on the 5th floor of the Seoul Central District Court, B (33, female) and C (33, female), who were clients of a domestic marriage information company A, appeared as witnesses in the criminal trial of the company's CEO. The witnesses, alumni of an Ivy League university in the United States, recounted the details of the case as follows.

In December 2018, B met with CEO A to discuss subscribing to an "upgrade program." At that meeting, CEO A brought up the story of a "female member from the same university" who had previously registered. Despite B warning, "If you say it like that, it's too narrow and everyone knows," CEO A continued with more specific explanations, saying, "As you know, C is also subscribed here and is using the service satisfactorily. Since Christian men are picky when it comes to dating, she has meetings twice a month." He also showed a profile of the grandson of a company executive who was also an alumnus of the same university and said, "C refused the connection saying she was 'acquainted' and it was difficult. How about you meeting him?"

B relayed this information to C about seven months after subscribing to the program. C, who had never disclosed her membership with the marriage information company to anyone around her, was deeply shocked and filed a complaint. The prosecution indicted CEO A and the company on charges including violation of the Personal Information Protection Act and the Marriage Brokerage Act. According to the Marriage Brokerage Act, personal information obtained through matchmaking services cannot be provided or disclosed to others against the user's will or used for purposes other than matchmaking.

In court, CEO A's side denied all charges. They claimed that C was merely caught up in B's lies, who had a dispute over a refund. B had demanded a full refund (7 million KRW) claiming she could not find a man she liked, but CEO A only offered half, which sparked the conflict.

During witness examination, CEO A's lawyer questioned B, asking, "Didn't you have more than 10 meetings?" and "Didn't you raise issues such as 'the men don't take me home, they act like they will meet but don't, which lowers my confidence'?" B replied, "I only gave feedback as requested."

CEO A made a final statement, saying, "(The witnesses) are all people with good family backgrounds and qualifications. If I had operated in that manner, customers in better positions would not have stayed silent." He added, "I am very angry and feel wronged."

However, CEO A's claims were not accepted. According to the legal community on the 11th, Judge Lee Won-jung of the 19th Criminal Division at Seoul Central District Court sentenced CEO A and the company to fines of 5 million KRW each. Judge Lee stated, "The witnesses' testimonies are reasonable, detailed, and credible, so the criminal facts can be sufficiently recognized." CEO A appealed the first trial verdict.