19. Case on Identity Verification of Potential Subscribers to Mobile
Communications Services
[2017Hun-Ma1209, September 26, 2019]
In this case, the Court held that Article 32-4 Sections 2 and 3 of the
Telecommunications Business Act and Article 37-6 Section 1, Section
2 Item 1, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the
Telecommunications Business Act―the provisions requiring a person who
desires to be a subscriber to telecommunications services to present a
personal identification certificate or other proof of identity and requiring a
telecommunications business operator to use an illegal contracting
prevention system to verify such proof of identity when they enter into
a contract for mobile phone services―do not infringe upon the right to
informational self-determination and the freedom of communications, and
thus are not in violation of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
Complainants, Kim ___ and Chu ___, each sought to enter into a contract
for mobile phone services with a telecommunications business operator
without identity verification, but were refused by their respective
telecommunications business operator. Thereafter, on November 1, 2017,
Complainants filed a constitutional complaint, asserting that Article 32-4
Sections 2, 3, and 4 and Article 32-5 of the Telecommunications Business
Act―the provisions requiring a person who desires to be a subscriber to
mobile communications services to go through identity verification when
entering into a contract with a telecommunications business operator―
had infringed upon their freedom of anonymous communications, secrecy
and freedom of private life, and right to informational self-determination.
- 211 -