Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Statutory exclusion and balancing for unlawfully obtained civil evidence
Supreme Court, Apr. 30, 2026, 2024Da222212 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does a recording of a non-public conversation between others made by a third party in breach of Article 14(1) of the Communication Secrets Protection Act have evidentiary capacity, and, absent a separate statutory rule, is unlawfully obtained evidence categorically barred in civil litigation?
Holding
No, as to the recording. Where a third party records a non-public conversation between others in breach of Article 14(1) of the Communication Secrets Protection Act, the file or transcript has no evidentiary capacity by force of Articles 14(2) and 4 of that Act. But where no separate statutory rule excludes the evidence, unlawfully obtained evidence is not categorically barred in civil litigation; the court compares the protected interests of the other party, such as personality interests, against the value of ascertaining substantive truth, weighing all the circumstances together.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
통신비밀보호법과 같이 개별 법령에 증거능력에 관한 규정이 별도로 존재하는 경우가 아닌 한, 위법하게 수집된 증거라고 하여 민사소송에서의 증거능력이 일률적으로 부정된다고 볼 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Except in cases such as the Protection of Communications Secrets Act where a separate provision governing the admissibility of evidence exists in an individual statute, the admissibility of evidence in a civil action of evidence collected unlawfully cannot be regarded as being categorically denied merely because it was collected unlawfully.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the appeals shall be borne by the defendants.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
법원이 그러한 비교형량을 할 때에는 사건의 내용과 성격, 문제 된 위법행위의 주체·경위 및 방법, 피침해이익의 성질과 피해의 내용 및 정도, 위법행위에 관련된 이해당사자 사이의 관계 및 분쟁의 양상, 위법행위로 수집한 증거로 증명하고자 하는 대상의 특성, 증거확보의 필요성 내지 긴급성 등 제반 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
When the court conducts such a comparative weighing, it must comprehensively consider all circumstances, including the content and nature of the case, the actor, circumstances and method of the unlawful act at issue, the nature of the interest infringed and the content and extent of the harm, the relationship between the interested parties involved in the unlawful act and the pattern of the dispute, the characteristics of the object sought to be proved by the evidence collected through the unlawful act, and the necessity or urgency of securing the evidence.
Factors
- 상대방의 인격적 이익 등의 보호이익과 실체적 진실발견의 가치를 비교형량하여 개별적으로 결정하여야 한다
- 개별 법령에 증거능력에 관한 규정이 별도로 존재하는 경우가 아닌 한
- 사건의 내용과 성격, 문제 된 위법행위의 주체·경위 및 방법
- 피침해이익의 성질과 피해의 내용 및 정도
- 증거확보의 필요성 내지 긴급성
Unofficial English translation
• The protected interests, such as the other party's personal interests, and the value of the discovery of substantive truth must be weighed against each other and determined on an individual basis
• Except in cases where a separate provision governing the admissibility of evidence exists in an individual statute
• The content and nature of the case, and the actor, circumstances and method of the unlawful act at issue
• The nature of the interest infringed and the content and extent of the harm
• The necessity or urgency of securing the evidence
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2024. 1. 11. 선고 2020도1538 판결(공2024상, 446), 대법원 2024. 4. 16. 선고 2023므16593 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2020Do1538 decided January 11, 2024 (Gong 2024 Sang, 446), Supreme Court Decision 2023Meu16593 decided April 16, 2024
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2024. 1. 11. 선고 2020도1538 판결(공2024상, 446), 대법원 2024. 4. 16. 선고 2023므16593 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When a spouse photographs messages on the other spouse's telephone in the shared home to prove a third party's affair, how far does that third party's own protected interest count in the comparison?
A decision reading a statutory exclusion into the Information and Communications Network Act would displace the balancing test for evidence collected under it. Supreme Court Decision 2020Do1538 or Supreme Court Decision 2023Meu16593 being qualified or overruled would also call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When a spouse photographs messages on the other spouse's telephone in the shared home to prove a third party's affair, how far does that third party's own protected interest count in the comparison?” vs Independent “How should courts weigh an especially serious invasion of privacy against evidence indispensable to establishing the truth when no statutory exclusion applies?”
The primary reading asks how an alleged affair partner's own interests enter the balancing of photographed spousal messages, whereas the independent reading asks how serious privacy harm weighs against indispensable evidence generally.
통신비밀보호법과 같이 개별 법령에 증거능력에 관한 규정이 별도로 존재하는 경우가 아닌 한, 위법하게 수집된 증거라고 하여 민사소송에서의 증거능력이 일률적으로 부정된다고 볼 수는 없다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 23 January 2024 (2023Na4119), admitted both the recorded conversation files and transcripts obtained by secretly installing a recorder in A's vehicle and the photographs of text messages, photos and videos taken from A's mobile telephone. On that evidence it found that Defendants 1 and 2 each had an affair with A and ordered them to pay the plaintiff consolation money.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the recorded conversation evidence had no evidentiary capacity under Articles 14(2) and 4 of the Communication Secrets Protection Act, so the court below's reasoning on it was in part inappropriate. But because no statute excludes evidence obtained by breaching Article 49 of the Information and Communications Network Act, and because the circumstances of collection, the parties' cohabitation as a married couple, the limited invasion of privacy and the urgency of proof in the pending divorce litigation weighed in favour of admission, the conclusion drawn from the photographs stood. Finding no error of law that affected the judgment, the Court dismissed all appeals on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A non-public conversation between others recorded by a third party in breach of Article 14(1) of the Communication Secrets Protection Act, since Articles 14(2) and 4 of that Act bar its use as evidence.
- Evidence gathered in breach of a statute that itself provides for the evidentiary capacity of such evidence, because the balancing test fills only the gap left where no such rule exists.
- A collection whose circumstances show a serious invasion of the privacy or personality interests of the person affected, so that the protected interests outweigh the value of ascertaining substantive truth.
Record verification notes
Set the evidence aside by statute first: ask whether the recording falls within Article 14(1) of the Communication Secrets Protection Act, whether Article 14(2) and Article 4 of that Act bar its use, and whether another statute, such as Article 49 of the Information and Communications Network Act, bars the gathering itself. Then work through the matters the Court listed, and gather what shows the state of mind at collection, the relationship between the parties, the nature of the invaded interest, any other lawfully obtained proof, and the urgency created by the pending divorce litigation.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 제3자가 통신비밀보호법 제14조 제1항을 위반하여 공개되지 않은 타인 간의 대화를 녹음한 경우, 그 녹음한 파일이나 녹취록이 증거능력이 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 개별 법령에 증거능력에 관한 규정이 별도로 존재하지 않는 경우, 위법하게 수집된 증거의 민사소송에서의 증거능력이 일률적으로 부정되는지 여부(소극) 및 그러한 증거의 증거능력 유무를 판단하는 기준
Unofficial English translation
[1] Where a third party, in violation of Article 14 (1) of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, records a conversation between others that has not been disclosed, whether the recorded file or the transcript thereof has admissibility of evidence (negative) [2] Where no separate provision governing the admissibility of evidence exists in an individual statute, whether the admissibility of evidence in a civil action of unlawfully collected evidence is categorically denied (negative), and the criteria for determining whether such evidence has admissibility of evidence
Summary of the holding
[1] 통신비밀보호법 제3조 제1항은 누구든지 형사소송법 또는 군사법원법의 규정에 의하지 아니하고는 공개되지 아니한 타인 간의 대화를 녹음 또는 청취하지 못한다고 규정하고, 제4조는 "제3조의 규정을 위반하여 불법감청에 의하여 지득 또는 채록된 전기통신의 내용은 재판 또는 징계절차에서 증거로 사용할 수 없다."라고 규정하고 있다. 나아가 통신비밀보호법 제14조에서 누구든지 공개되지 아니한 타인 간의 대화를 녹음할 수 없다고 규정하고(제1항), "제4조의 규정은 제1항의 규정에 의한 녹음에 관하여 이를 적용한다."라고 하고 있다(제2항). 이에 따르면 제3자가 통신비밀보호법 제14조 제1항을 위반하여 공개되지 않은 타인 간의 대화를 녹음한 경우, 그 녹음한 파일이나 녹취록은 같은 법 제14조 제2항, 제4조에 의하여 증거능력이 없다. [2] 민사소송법은 자유심증주의를 채택하면서(제202조), 형사소송법과 달리 위법하게 수집된 증거의 증거능력을 배제하는 규정을 두고 있지 않으므로, 통신비밀보호법과 같이 개별 법령에 증거능력에 관한 규정이 별도로 존재하는 경우가 아닌 한, 위법하게 수집된 증거라고 하여 민사소송에서의 증거능력이 일률적으로 부정된다고 볼 수는 없다. 그러한 증거의 증거능력 유무는 민사소송법의 기본이념인 재판의 공정과 신의성실의 원칙을 기초로 상대방의 인격적 이익 등의 보호이익과 실체적 진실발견의 가치를 비교형량하여 개별적으로 결정하여야 한다. 법원이 그러한 비교형량을 할 때에는 사건의 내용과 성격, 문제 된 위법행위의 주체·경위 및 방법, 피침해이익의 성질과 피해의 내용 및 정도, 위법행위에 관련된 이해당사자 사이의 관계 및 분쟁의 양상, 위법행위로 수집한 증거로 증명하고자 하는 대상의 특성, 증거확보의 필요성 내지 긴급성 등 제반 사정을 종합적으로 고려하여야 한다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the appeals shall be borne by the defendants.
Provisions referred to
[1] 통신비밀보호법 제3조 제1항, 제4조, 제14조 / [2] 민사소송법 제202조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger