55% citation rate for applications for non-disclosure of address and contact information in domestic affairs litigation... Park Ji-won: ‘Civil Procedure Act will be revised’

Park Ji-won, “The court doesn’t even manage detailed statistics… We will revise the Civil Procedure Act.”

(Seoul = Yonhap News) Reporter Choi Pyeong-cheon = The court's citation rate for applications for personal information protection measures in which a party to a domestic dispute requesting that the other party not disclose his or her address and contact information was found to be 55%.

According to data received from the Supreme Court on the 13th by Rep. Park Jie-won of the Democratic Party of Korea, a member of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly, from July of last year, when the system was implemented, to June 30 of this year, the number of applications for restrictions, including viewing of trial records in domestic cases, was 970.

Of these, 309 cases were processed, and 170 cases, or 55% of the processed cases, were cited.

In the case of civil cases, 1,827 cases were filed, and 1,034 (64.7%) of the 1,597 cases processed were cited.

Representative Park pointed out that although exposure of addresses and contact information during litigation may lead to personal safety issues, the Supreme Court did not manage detailed statistics such as what information such as addresses and contact information were requested for protection and the number of applications for protection in divorce cases.

In relation to this, there was a recent incident in Gwangju, Gyeonggi Province, where a husband visited his wife in divorce proceedings after looking at the address written on the divorce complaint and murdered her.

Representative Park said, “We must first have a system to properly check how well the system protects victims,” and added, “If a temporary protection order or victim protection order for a victim of domestic violence has already been issued, he said he would propose an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act that would require the court to confirm the intention to protect personal information in other lawsuits.