Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Recording without consent, the voice right and when it becomes a tort
Supreme Court, Oct. 16, 2025, 2025Da204730 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상청구의소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is recording a conversation over the other party's objection, or broadcasting and distributing the recording, an infringement of the voice right, and may a file or transcript recorded without consent in a civil case still be used as evidence without thereby becoming a tort?
Holding
In principle, recording another's voice against that person's will, or broadcasting and distributing the recording, may infringe the voice right, a personality right protected by the first sentence of Article 10 of the Constitution. The mere fact that a conversation was recorded without the other party's consent does not make the recording an unlawful tort, because a file or transcript so made may still be used as evidence in a civil case and recording may be needed to preserve the substantive truth or to defend oneself. It may nonetheless be a tort where the means was improper, such as deceiving or threatening the other party despite an express objection, or where the recording was broadcast or distributed without consent, and the content and necessity of the interest sought, together with the nature and degree of the harm, establish unlawfulness.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
민사소송에서 대화 상대방의 동의 없이 대화를 녹음하였더라도 그 녹음한 파일이나 녹취록을 증거로 사용할 수 있고, 실체적 진실 보존 또는 자기 방어를 위하여 상대방 대화의 녹음이 필요한 경우가 있음을 고려하면, 상대방의 동의 없이 대화를 녹음하였다는 사실만으로 그러한 녹음행위가 음성권을 위법하게 침해하는 불법행위에 해당한다고 볼 수는 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Even if a conversation is recorded without the consent of the other party to the conversation in a civil action, the recorded file or transcript may be used as evidence, and considering that there are cases in which recording the other party's conversation is necessary for preserving substantive truth or for self-defense, the mere fact that a conversation was recorded without the consent of the other party cannot be regarded as making such an act of recording a tort (unlawful act) that unlawfully infringes the right to voice.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그러나 상대방의 명시적인 반대의사에도 불구하고 상대방을 기망 또는 협박하여 녹음을 하는 등 침해방법이 부당한 경우, 또는 녹음행위 자체는 부당하게 이루어지지 않았더라도 녹음한 음성을 상대방의 동의 없이 방송, 배포하는 등의 경우에는, 이로 인하여 달성하려는 이익의 내용과 필요성, 상대방이 입게 되는 피해의 성질과 정도 등에 비추어 위법성이 인정되면 불법행위에 해당할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
However, where the method of infringement is improper, such as where the recording is made by deception or threats against the other party notwithstanding the other party's express intention to the contrary, or where, although the act of recording itself was not improperly carried out, the recorded voice is broadcast, distributed, or the like without the consent of the other party, such an act may constitute a tort (unlawful act) if, in light of the content and necessity of the interest sought to be achieved thereby, and the nature and extent of the harm suffered by the other party, unlawfulness is found.
Factors
- 상대방의 동의 없이 대화를 녹음하였다는 사실만으로 그러한 녹음행위가 음성권을 위법하게 침해하는 불법행위에 해당한다고 볼 수는 없다
- 상대방의 명시적인 반대의사에도 불구하고 상대방을 기망 또는 협박하여 녹음을 하는 등 침해방법이 부당한 경우
- 녹음한 음성을 상대방의 동의 없이 방송, 배포하는 등의 경우에는
- 이로 인하여 달성하려는 이익의 내용과 필요성, 상대방이 입게 되는 피해의 성질과 정도 등에 비추어 위법성이 인정되면
Unofficial English translation
• the mere fact that a conversation was recorded without the consent of the other party cannot be regarded as making such an act of recording a tort (unlawful act) that unlawfully infringes the right to voice
• where the method of infringement is improper, such as where the recording is made by deception or threats against the other party notwithstanding the other party's express intention to the contrary
• in cases where the recorded voice is broadcast, distributed, or the like without the consent of the other party,
• if, in light of the content and necessity of the interest sought to be achieved thereby, and the nature and extent of the harm suffered by the other party, unlawfulness is found,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2009. 9. 10. 선고 2009다37138, 37145 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2009Da37138, 37145 decided September 10, 2009
Decisions referred to
대법원 2009. 9. 10. 선고 2009다37138, 37145 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the employer records a conversation and keeps the file without ever submitting it to the labour commission or a court, does the need to preserve the substantive truth still make the recording lawful?
A later Supreme Court decision that states the voice right, or the relation between unlawfully obtained recordings and Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, differently would require this entry to be read again. So would a record showing that the recordings in this case were broadcast, distributed or used for a purpose other than the labour dispute.
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 “If the employer records a conversation and keeps the file without ever submitting it to the labour commission or a court, does the need to preserve the substantive truth still make the recording lawful?” vs Independent “Under what specific circumstances does the need to preserve evidence justify distributing a nonconsensual recording beyond the litigation?”
The primary reading asks whether retaining an unsubmitted recording is justified, while the independent reading asks whether distributing it outside litigation is justified.
민사소송에서 대화 상대방의 동의 없이 대화를 녹음하였더라도 그 녹음한 파일이나 녹취록을 증거로 사용할 수 있고, 실체적 진실 보존 또는 자기 방어를 위하여 상대방 대화의 녹음이 필요한 경우가 있음을 고려하면, 상대방의 동의 없이 대화를 녹음하였다는 사실만으로 그러한 녹음행위가 음성권을 위법하게 침해하는 불법행위에 해당한다고 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 Busan District Court, in its judgment of 12 December 2024 (2024Na49834), and the first-instance judgment it adopted, held that the circumstances the plaintiff asserted and the evidence submitted were not enough to establish a legitimate expectation that the fixed-term employment contract would be renewed, and rejected the claim against Defendant Company. On the recording, it held that Defendant 3's recording of the entire conversation with the plaintiff at the office on 22 July 2022, made without the plaintiff's consent, fell within what the plaintiff had to tolerate and was not unlawful.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error on either head. It stated the voice right for itself, then held that consent alone does not decide unlawfulness: what matters is whether the means was improper, what interest the recording served and how necessary it was, and what harm the other party suffered. On these facts the recording was made while Defendant 3 explained the closure of the branch and sought a written confirmation, no deception or coercion appeared despite the plaintiff's objection, the subject was not intimate, and the files were used only in submission to the labour commission and the court, so all appeals were dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the other party expressly objected and was deceived or threatened into being recorded, so that the means of intrusion was improper.
- A case in which the recording was broadcast or distributed without the other party's consent, so that the recording left the narrow use of proving a dispute.
- A recording that reaches into a person's private and intimate sphere, so that the harm from the recording is grave in itself.
Record verification notes
Ask first how the recording was made and whether an express objection was overcome by deception or coercion, then where the file went after it was made. Compare the content of the conversation with the interest the recorder says it served, since the Court relied on the branch-closure explanation and the need to prevent a dispute. Note that the Court also held the plaintiff had no legitimate expectation of renewal, so a stronger renewal record may not disturb the recording holding but belongs to a separate analysis.
From the official text
Points at issue
상대방의 의사에 반하여 그의 음성을 녹음하거나, 녹음한 음성을 방송, 배포하는 등의 행위가 음성권을 침해하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) / 민사소송에서 대화 상대방의 동의 없이 대화를 녹음한 경우 그 녹음한 파일이나 녹취록을 증거로 사용할 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 그러한 녹음행위가 침해방법이 부당한 경우나 녹음한 음성을 상대방의 동의 없이 방송, 배포하는 등 달성하려는 이익의 내용과 필요성, 상대방이 입게 되는 피해의 성질과 정도 등에 비추어 위법성이 인정되는 경우, 불법행위에 해당할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether an act of recording another party's voice against that party's will, or broadcasting or distributing the recorded voice, infringes the right to voice (principally affirmative) / Whether, in a civil action, a file or transcript of a conversation recorded without the consent of the other party to the conversation may be used as evidence (affirmative), and whether such an act of recording may constitute a tort (unlawful act) (affirmative) where the method of infringement is improper, or where, in light of the content and necessity of the interest sought to be achieved by broadcasting or distributing the recorded voice without the other party's consent, and the nature and extent of the harm suffered by the other party, unlawfulness is found
Summary of the holding
사람은 누구나 자신의 음성이 자기 의사에 반하여 함부로 녹음, 재생, 녹취, 복제, 방송, 배포 등이 되지 아니할 권리를 가진다. 이러한 음성권은 헌법 제10조 제1문에 의하여 헌법적으로도 보장되고 있는 인격권에 속하는 권리이다. 따라서 상대방의 의사에 반하여 그의 음성을 녹음하거나, 녹음한 음성을 방송, 배포하는 등의 행위는 원칙적으로 음성권에 대한 침해가 될 수 있다. 민사소송에서 대화 상대방의 동의 없이 대화를 녹음하였더라도 그 녹음한 파일이나 녹취록을 증거로 사용할 수 있고, 실체적 진실 보존 또는 자기 방어를 위하여 상대방 대화의 녹음이 필요한 경우가 있음을 고려하면, 상대방의 동의 없이 대화를 녹음하였다는 사실만으로 그러한 녹음행위가 음성권을 위법하게 침해하는 불법행위에 해당한다고 볼 수는 없다. 그러나 상대방의 명시적인 반대의사에도 불구하고 상대방을 기망 또는 협박하여 녹음을 하는 등 침해방법이 부당한 경우, 또는 녹음행위 자체는 부당하게 이루어지지 않았더라도 녹음한 음성을 상대방의 동의 없이 방송, 배포하는 등의 경우에는, 이로 인하여 달성하려는 이익의 내용과 필요성, 상대방이 입게 되는 피해의 성질과 정도 등에 비추어 위법성이 인정되면 불법행위에 해당할 수 있다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
헌법 제10조, 민사소송법 제202조, 민법 제750조, 제751조
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