A. The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information on August 24, 2012 to the Plaintiff is revoked.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on August 24, 2012 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's refusal to disclose information except the name, age, and place of origin (other than specific lot numbers) of the prisoner in the Daejeon-type prison (management number D-E) from 1950 to 1951 among the dispositions against the plaintiff's partial refusal to disclose information made against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts which are dismissed or added in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

"A. The plaintiff's assertion" in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 2, No. 17, No. 3, No. 9) is followed by "A. The plaintiff's assertion" (section 2, No. 17, No. 3, No. 9)

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On September 28, 1950, the State of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") forced citizens, including the plaintiff's form C (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") to cover a fluorial fluor of the People's Forces with a fluorial fluor who was under suspicion. The 122 Seoul residents, including the deceased, who were confined in the Seodaemun-gu Office at the time, were transferred to Daejeon District Office on December 1950 and died of the death of the victim by the adviser, etc. on January 1, 1951. Nevertheless, the State did not formally notify the victims of the death of the victim, including the plaintiff, until 60 years have passed, but did not make efforts to discover harm, etc., and accordingly, the bereaved family members including the plaintiff, were forced to escape from liability, without confirming the death of the victim, and caused a serious mental suffering.

Accordingly, the plaintiff notified the bereaved family members of the victims on behalf of the State, and based on the honor of the victims, and commemorates them so that they can carry out memorial projects, such as the establishment of a memorial tower, it is illegal for the defendant's refusal of the request to disclose the information of this case, but the disposition of this case is against the citizens' right to know.

○ The portion of the first instance court’s decision No. 4, conduct No. 14 and conduct No. 17 (5) that the Plaintiff applied for was made as follows.

5) Pursuant to Article 19 of the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for Truth and Reconciliation, the Plaintiff filed an application for the truth-finding of the deceased’s case with the Committee for the Settlement of History for Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee for Settlement of History”).

○ From 7th to 16th of the judgment of the first instance court, the part “the Plaintiff would be ...... the Plaintiff reached the request for the disclosure of information of this case.” The part “as set forth below.”

The plaintiff was forced to be the bereaved family members of the deceased who made sacrifice for the Daejeon District Office, and was forced to be the Daejeon District Office on December 1950, 1950, including the deceased, and was transferred to the Daejeon District Office. On January 1, 1951, the plaintiff was 122 honored by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City residents who died on the same day as the installation of a memorial tower, and led to the request for the information disclosure of this case.

○ In Part 8 of the Decision of the first instance court, the following shall be added to the "in difficult point" in Part 2 of the Decision of the second instance.

Each prisoner, who was written after February 1, 1951, on which the date of detention or the date of entrance, among the information of this case, was entered before 1950,99, the Seoul several days, or the sacrifice of the Daejeon Prison, is completed, shall be irrelevant to 122 persons suspected of having been committed against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City residents who want to write off his honor.

○ The phrase “this case ①, ③ the information of this case” described in Section 6 of the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s third letter is read as the phrase “other information (including information which does not contain any date of detention or entry) except that which was written prior to September 28, 1950 or written after February 1, 1951, or which was written after February 1, 1951.”

○ Part 8 of the 7th page “The machine part is lawful” (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du8710, Dec. 13, 2012) is added to the following.

○ The judgment of the first instance court (attached Form 1) shall be replaced by attached Form 1 (attached Form 1).

3. Conclusion

If so, the part of the plaintiff's claim of this case concerning the information listed in the list of [Attachment 1] shall be cited for the ground and the remaining claims shall be dismissed for the ground of appeal. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the defendant's appeal and changing the judgment of the court of first instance.

Judges Lee Young-young

Judges Lee Jae-won