A court ruled that the total 2 billion won in penalty surcharge imposed by the Financial Services Commission on Yegaram and Goryeo Savings Bank for improperly managing customers' credit information must be canceled.
The 3rd Division of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Choi Su-jin) said on Feb. 7 that on Feb. 6 it had ruled to cancel all dispositions imposing a penalty surcharge in a lawsuit Yegaram and Goryeo Savings Bank filed against the Financial Services Commission (FSC).
Yegaram and Goryeo Savings Bank are affiliates of Taekwang Group. Other affiliates include Heungkuk Life Insurance and Taekwang Industrial, and it recently acquired Aekyung Industrial Co. from AK Holdings.
Taekwang Group affiliates have concluded a mutual business agreement since 2014 and dispatched personnel to a council. Each affiliate receives support from the council across overall operations, including planning, human resources, finance, legal affairs, public relations, and audit.
From Dec. 2019 to Nov. 2021, Yegaram Savings Bank delivered various agreements and litigation-related documents to employees belonging to Taekwang Group affiliates for the purposes of legal review related to savings bank operations and reporting on management status. In the process, 77 items of personal credit information—such as loan amounts, terms, interest rates, and joint guarantors—of 63 customers were provided without customer consent.
From Apr. 2018 to Nov. 2021, Goryeo Savings Bank provided loan agreements and attached documents to affiliate employees to receive legal review. In the process, 71 items of personal credit information of 71 customers were shared without consent.
In Dec. 2024, the Financial Services Commission (FSC) imposed a penalty surcharge of 1.034 billion won on Yegaram Savings Bank for violating the Credit Information Act. The penalty surcharge imposed on Goryeo Savings Bank was 948 million won.
The two savings banks then filed an administrative lawsuit. The companies argued that they provided the information to the council to obtain legal advice and that it was not used to assess customers' credit, and claimed that the information provided did not constitute personal credit information under the Credit Information Protection Act.
The Seoul Administrative Court determined that what the two savings banks provided to affiliate employees constituted personal credit information. The bench said, "It is reasonable to view that there arose a risk of abuse or misuse beyond the purposes and scope of use previously consented to by customers, by other affiliates belonging to the council."
However, the bench canceled the penalty surcharge disposition, saying, "The amount of the penalty surcharge is excessive, constituting an unlawful deviation or abuse of discretion." The bench said, "It appears there was no unjust enrichment gained by (the two savings banks) from providing the information, and it is hard to see that the reduction in legal expense was significant," adding, "Given that a penalty surcharge has the nature of recouping unjust enrichment, imposing as-is a surcharge calculated based on sales appears somewhat excessive."