열람등사불허가처분취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on October 19, 2015, the Defendant filed a motion for perusal or reproduction of the entire investigation records of the case No. 2009-type and No. 46483 (hereinafter “instant investigation records”); (b) on November 9, 2015, the Defendant did not decide whether to disclose the records by November 20, 2015 after the date on which the said motion was filed; and (c) pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (where the applicant is dissatisfied with the public institution’s decision related to the information disclosure or the applicant has no decision to disclose the information within 20 days after the request for the information disclosure, the Defendant is deemed to have filed an administrative litigation as prescribed by the Administrative Litigation Act).
Where a public institution is requested to disclose information held and managed by the people, it is obligated to disclose such information unless it falls under the grounds for non-disclosure provided for in each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, and the Rules on Affairs for the Preservation of Public Prosecutors, which the prosecutor refuses to disclose the investigation records, is merely an administrative rule which is not binding externally. However, the defendant did not disclose the investigation records of this case without any grounds. Thus, the disposition of non-disclosure of this case should be revoked illegally
2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense
A. On October 19, 2015, the Defendant: (a) visited the public service offices of the Sung-nam District Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Plaintiff applied for inspection and copying of the investigation records of this case; (b) as a result of the confirmation by the staff in charge, the investigation records of this case were sent to the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office on October 13, 2015 according to the request for the recording of the public prosecutor’s loan to which the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office belongs; (c) notified the Plaintiff that he could not proceed with the inspection and copying according to the above circumstances; and (d) requested by the Plaintiff, the pertinent application for inspection and copying (hereinafter “instant application”).