[2] The case holding that in light of the method and procedure of disclosure of the copy and output, it is possible to disclose only the remaining information except for the information about the claimant in the information disclosure processing ledger, and there is room to view that the rest of the information alone is worth disclosure

[3] The person who bears the burden of proving that there is a considerable probability that the public institution holds and manages the information seeking disclosure (=the person who requested disclosure) and the person who bears the burden of proving that the information is no longer held and managed (=public institution)

[4] The case holding that it cannot be readily concluded that the prison warden did not keep and manage the documents containing the information since the guidelines for the operation of the prison staff's association and the rules for the supply of prison supplies

[5] The meaning of "information which makes it considerably difficult for a public institution to perform its duties if it is disclosed" and the criteria for determining whether it falls under "information which makes it considerably difficult for a public institution to perform its duties" under Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Information Disclosure Act

[6] The case holding that it is difficult to constitute "information that significantly makes it difficult for a public institution to perform its duties when it is disclosed" under Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Information Disclosure Act concerning the execution and correction of a sentence that is subject to non-disclosure

[2] The case holding that in light of the method and procedure of disclosure of the copy and output, it is possible to disclose only the remaining information except for the information about the claimant in the information disclosure processing ledger, and there is room to view that the rest of the information alone is worth disclosure

[3] As a matter of principle, the information disclosure system has the burden of proving that there is a considerable probability that the public institution holds and manages the information to be disclosed as a system that discloses the information held and managed by the public institution. However, if the public institution held and manages the information at the time of disclosure, but no later exists after the document, etc. containing the information is destroyed, the public institution bears the burden of proving that the information is no longer retained and managed.

[4] The case holding that it cannot be readily concluded that the prison warden did not keep and manage the documents containing the information since the guidelines for the operation of the prison staff's association and the rules for the supply of prison goods for prisoners have been repealed

[5] "Information pertaining to the execution and correction of a sentence that is subject to non-disclosure" under Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004), and "information that makes it considerably difficult to perform his/her duties if disclosed," means highly probable cases where the information in question is disclosed, such as the management and maintenance of order of prisoners, safety of confinement facilities, appropriate treatment of prisoners, and fair and efficient performance of duties concerning correction and edification, and the extent of which is obvious. The issue of whether it falls under such cases shall be determined individually according to specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests such as fairness in performing duties protected by non-disclosure and the interests such as guaranteeing citizens' right to know, guaranteeing citizens' participation in state affairs, securing transparency in state administration, etc.

[6] The case holding that information about the total amount of proceeds remitted by the warden to the Korea Correctional Association that is a foundation; the amount of proceeds distributed to the warden; the amount of proceeds distributed to the warden; the budget statement as to the receipt and treatment of prison employees; the number of transferred medical persons related to the transfer and treatment of an outside hospital; the number of transferred medical persons related to the transfer and treatment of an inmate; the current status of treatment of the transferred medical persons (budget, examination and operation); the budget payment compared to the total amount of medical expenses of the transferred medical persons; the budget payment compared to the total amount of medical expenses; the current status of the transferred medical person's illness; the number of applicants for subscription in each newspaper related to the current status of prisoners newspaper and subscription to the prison (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004) cannot be seen as information pertaining to the execution and correction of the sentence provided for non-disclosure in Article 7 (1) 4 of the former Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan.

A. As to the plaintiff's assertion that only the remaining information except the personal identification information in the information disclosure processing register of this case should be disclosed, the court below determined that the defendant's disposition was legitimate on the ground that the document stating the date of receipt, requester, purpose of claim, internal intent and deliberation process, etc. of the information disclosure processing register of this case constitutes "personal information by which the specific person can be identified based on the name, resident registration number, etc. included in the pertinent information" under Article 7 (1) 6 of the former Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the document stating the applicant's relevant matters as well as the decision-making with respect to others is bound.

B. As a result of an examination of illegality of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by an administrative agency, when the court recognizes that the information refused to disclose is mixed with the information subject to non-disclosure and that the information can be disclosed to the extent that it does not violate the purport of the request for disclosure, and that the part concerning the non-disclosure can be partially revoked even if there is no modification in the purport of the request for disclosure. The part concerning the non-disclosure can be separated from the part concerning the information that does not go against the purport of the request for disclosure, and that the part concerning the non-disclosure can be disclosed to the extent that the part concerning the non-disclosure can be separated from the part concerning the non-disclosure can be disclosed to the extent that it does not mean that the information in question can be disclosed to the public in light of the method and procedure for disclosure of the information in question and it means the case where the information in question does not mean the case where the information in question is excluded or deleted from the technology related to the non-disclosure information and only the remaining part can be disclosed to the public (refer to Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du6425

However, pursuant to Article 8(3) of the Act, Articles 6 and 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18493 of Jul. 29, 2004), and Article 3(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 245 of Jul. 29, 2004) (attached Form 3), the information disclosure processing register is a document in which the processing status of the request for information disclosure is recorded, such as the date of receipt, receipt number, requester, claim (information content, purpose of use, claim method), matters to be processed (information disclosure, scope of disclosure, reasons for disclosure, date of disclosure, date of disclosure, method of disclosure, disclosure, amount of disclosure, and department in charge). However, it is difficult to view that the information about the claimant falls under "information about an individual by which a specific person can be identified," on the other hand, the remaining information constitutes "information about an individual," and it is worth disclosing the information processing register as well.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the entire information disclosure processing ledger of this case constituted information subject to non-disclosure. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 12 of the Act or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the possibility of partial disclosure of the information disclosure processing ledger of this case.

2. As to the request for disclosure of information under the Guidelines for Operation of Correctional Institution Staff's Association (Correction 23500-100) and the Rules for Provision of Prisons (Ministry of Justice Directive 228)

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s disposition that rendered a non-disclosure decision was lawful on the ground that each of the above information was abolished, not existing, or that the Defendant’s non-disclosure decision was impossible, unless the Plaintiff’s proof as to the existence of each of the above information is demonstrated

B. In principle, the wrong information disclosure system has the burden of proof against the applicant for disclosure that it is highly probable that the public institution holds and manages the information that is sought disclosure as a system that discloses information held and managed by the public institution. However, if the public institution held and manages the information at the time of disclosure, but no later exists after the document containing the information, etc. is destroyed, the burden of proving that the information is no longer retained and managed shall be imposed on the public institution.

According to the records, the operation guidelines of the above prison staff's meeting held and managed by the defendant were abolished as they were enacted on August 8, 1985 and amended on April 4, 2002 to the operation guidelines of the correctional institution staff's meeting (Correction 12530-507). The above rules on the supply of prisoners' changing goods were enacted on September 12, 1989 and amended on March 28, 2002 to the rules on the supply of prisoners' changing goods at the prisoner's expense (Ordinance No. 460 of the Ministry of Justice No. 460) and repealed by Article 4 of the Addenda. Thus, the abolition of the rules means the suspension of its application, and since the above operation guidelines or supply regulations were abolished, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant has not immediately kept and managed the above documents, since each of the above information was abolished, the court below should have determined whether the defendant had been in possession and management of the documents after its expiration.

Nevertheless, the court below decided that the disposition of this case was legitimate for the reasons stated in its holding without properly examining whether the preservation period of each of the above information was separately set or actually discarded. It did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, but did not transfer the burden of proof as to the possession and management of information.

3. (1) As to the sales revenue of goods borne by prisoners at the prisoner’s expense, the Defendant’s total amount of the proceeds remitted to the Incorporated Correctional Association and the amount of revenue and use distributed to the Defendant; (2) the business plan and budget statement; (3) the number of transferred medical persons related to the transfer and treatment of prisoners outside the hospital; (4) the number of transferred medical persons related to the transfer and treatment of prisoners; (3) the details of treatment of the transferred medical persons; (4) the current status of the payment of the budget for the total amount of the transferred medical persons; (4) the current status of the transferred medical persons for each type of personal data; (4) the request for disclosure of information on the number of applicants for each newspaper related to the current status

A. In other words, the citizen's right to know is the right directly guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution because the freedom of access to, collection and processing of information is the right to share the nature of freedom and the nature of the right to claim, and the law enacted for its concrete realization also declares the principle of information disclosure by allowing the disclosure of the information held and managed by public institutions in principle in Article 3 of the Act, and lists exceptional reasons for exclusion from disclosure, "information which makes it considerably difficult to perform its duties if disclosed" is highly probable if such information is disclosed, such as the execution and correction of sentence prescribed for non-disclosure in Article 7 (1) 4 of the Act, and the safety of confinement facilities, appropriate treatment and correction and edification of inmates, and the extent of such disclosure is significant, and the law should be determined individually by comparing the interests of the people such as guaranteeing the citizen's right to know, the citizen's right to participate in state affairs and the interests of the people, and the interests of government administration 200 and 200.20.20.20.

(1) First, we examine the total amount of the proceeds remitted by the Defendant to the Korea Correctional Association, which is a foundation, concerning the proceeds from the sale of the goods at the prisoner’s expense, and the proceeds and details of the use.

The lower court determined to the effect that with respect to the sales revenue of goods borne by prisoners at the prisoner’s expense, since the Defendant’s total amount of revenue remitted to the Korea Correctional Association, and the amount of revenue and use distributed to the Defendant, if disclosed, are likely to adversely affect the trust relationship between prisoners, incorporated foundations, correctional associations, and the Defendant’s efficient acceptance and management affairs of the Defendant, who is a punishment enforcement agency, may seriously undermine the efficient reception and management affairs of the Defendant, a punishment enforcement agency, as provided in Article 7(1)4 of the Act, constitutes “information pertaining to the execution and correction of punishment, which, if disclosed, has considerable reasons for

However, in full view of Article 22 of the Criminal Administration Act, Article 91 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act, and the procedural provisions on the supply, etc. of goods to be borne by prisoners at the prisoner’s own expense (the Regulation No. 439, Oct. 2, 95, and records No. 283) of the Criminal Administration Act, since the head of the correctional association branch, which is entrusted with the sale of goods sold to the prisoner in the correctional institution, takes overall control of the business affairs of the branch, and manages the proceeds sold to the prisoner in the correctional institution, the head of the prison takes charge of the business affairs of the branch. Thus, information on the total sales proceeds of goods to be borne by the prisoner in the above association, and the sales proceeds and use proceeds distributed to the correctional institution, which the head of the prison takes charge of the above association, shall be deemed information that the head of the prison prepares or acquires and manages in his/her duties. Meanwhile, in light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to find it difficult to disclose each of the above information to the public.

Nevertheless, the court below held that each of the above information is "information which has considerable grounds to recognize that it would substantially be difficult to perform its duties when it is disclosed as a matter of execution and correction of punishment" for the reasons stated in its reasoning, and there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 7 (1) 4 of the Act.

(2) We examine the following: (a) the result of settlement of accounts concerning the receipt of correctional staff and the project plan and budget bill:

The lower court determined to the effect that each of the above information constitutes “information pertaining to the enforcement of punishment prescribed in Article 7(1)4 of the Act and the disclosure of information leakage, etc., which would significantly impede the performance of duties if disclosed, on the ground that the settlement of accounts, the business plan, and the budget bill concerning the receipt of the prison staff’s meeting falls under the internal information unique to the documents prepared for the purpose of efficient operation of the prison staff’s meeting, and the matters pertaining to the autonomous operation of the prison staff’s meeting falls under an internal control function of the State agency and the disclosure of information to a general prisoner, other than

However, in full view of Article 22 of the Criminal Administration Act, Article 91 of the Enforcement Decree of the Criminal Administration Act, and the procedure provisions on the supply, etc. of goods borne by prisoners at the prisoner's expense, the prison staff council is an organization composed of prison staff. However, on the other hand, since it is in a position of being entrusted with the business of selling goods borne by prisoners at the selling place operated by it in the correctional institution, it is difficult to be regarded as an autonomous organization in a pure sense, and the business of selling goods borne by prisoners at the prisoner's expense is also entrusted through the above association, and it cannot be deemed as a mere private business because the state's business is entrusted. Meanwhile, in light of the above legal principles, the contents of each of the above information are merely the result of settlement of accounts as to the number of prison staff members and the budget, it is highly probable that the above information is disclosed, the safety of confinement facilities, the appropriate treatment of prisoners, and the fair and efficient execution of the defendant's duties related to correction and edification, it is considerably difficult to recognize that it should be executed.

Nevertheless, the court below held that each of the above information constitutes "information that has considerable reasons to recognize that it would substantially be difficult to perform its duties when it is disclosed as a matter of execution or correction of a sentence" solely based on its stated reasoning, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to Article 7 (1) 4 of the Act.

(3) In addition, regarding the number of prisoners outside hospital, the details of diagnosis and treatment (treatment, examination and operation), the current status of the transferred medical person, the payment of medical expenses (budget payment, self-payment) for the transferred medical person, the budget payment compared to the total amount of medical expenses for the transferred medical person, and the number of prisoners outside hospital for the information disclosure claim on the current status by name of the transferred medical person.

(A) First, we examine the number of prisoners transferred to an inmate outside hospital.

The court below determined to the effect that the number of transferred medical personnel outside the hospital constitutes "information pertaining to the execution and correction of punishment, which has considerable reasons to make it considerably difficult for the defendant to perform his/her duties if disclosed, on the grounds that there is no direct or indirect interest with the plaintiff, who is the manager in charge, and that the defendant's inherent information of the defendant, who manages the sentence, is highly likely to seriously harm the execution and performance of his/her duties if disclosed to prisoners."

However, unless there are other special circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the statistical data on the number of prisoners outside hospital hospitals can not be deemed to constitute "information on the execution and correction of the punishment prescribed in Article 7 (1) 4 of the Act, which, if disclosed, has considerable reasons to believe that it is significantly difficult for them to perform their duties."

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the above information constitutes "information that has considerable reasons to recognize that it would substantially be difficult to perform its duties when it is disclosed as a matter of execution and correction of punishment" only for the reasons stated in its reasoning, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to Article 7 (1) 4 of the Act.

(B) Next, we examine the current status of medical treatment (treatment, examination, operation) by patient outside hospital, the payment of medical expenses (budget payment, self-payment), the budget payment compared to the total amount of medical expenses, and the current status of each patient.

The court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning based on its evidence, and determined that the defendant's disposition was legitimate, where the defendant's information constitutes "information pertaining to an individual who can identify a specific person based on the name, resident registration number, etc. included in the pertinent information, etc. included in the pertinent information, and thus, the defendant's disposition of non-disclosure of the information constitutes "information pertaining to the execution, correction, and security disposition of punishment, which has considerable reasons for making it considerably difficult to perform his/her duties if disclosed, on the ground that there is no direct or indirect interest with the plaintiff, the manager, and the defendant's unique information, as well as the treatment information and status of other prisoners, and the disclosure of the defendant's own information, which is managed by the execution of punishment and performance of duties, is highly likely to cause considerable harm to the prisoners."

However, the above information does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 7 (1) of the Act which provides for the reasons that the defendant has no direct or indirect interest in managing the prisoners because it does not fall under the grounds for non-disclosure, and it does not constitute "information with considerable reasons to recognize that it would substantially be difficult to perform his/her duties if it is disclosed." In light of the above legal principles, the name, resident registration number, etc. of each of the above information shall be the personal identification information provided for in Article 7 (1) 6 of the Act, and the remaining information except the personal identification information shall not be disclosed if it is disclosed, because it does not fall under the grounds for non-disclosure, and it does not fall under the grounds for non-disclosure, and it does not constitute "information with considerable reasons to recognize that it is considerably difficult for the plaintiff to disclose such information in light of the methods of and methods of disclosure, and methods of fair and efficient performance of the defendant's duties concerning the management and maintenance of prisoners, safety of confinement facilities, appropriate treatment of prisoners, correction and edification, and its disclosure of the information."

Nevertheless, the court below held that all of the above information constitutes "information that has considerable reasons to recognize that it is substantially difficult to perform its duties when it is disclosed as a matter of execution or correction of a sentence." Thus, there is an error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 7 (1) 4 and Article 12 of the Act.

(4) Lastly, I examine the number of applicants for subscription for each newspaper relating to the current status of prisoners' newspaper subscription.

The court below determined to the purport that the non-disclosure disposition of this case is legitimate on the ground that the disclosure of the number of applicants by newspapers related to the current status of the newspaper subscription constitutes "information which has considerable reasons for significantly obstructing the performance of their duties if disclosed" as matters concerning the execution and correction of the sentence stipulated in Article 7 (1) 4 of the Act, on the ground that the defendant's disclosure of personal information, political, social and ideological orientations, or the possession and use of the money in custody, etc. of other prisoners would result in a conflict between each other, and the defendant who disclosed such information would not be able to achieve the purpose of correction, etc.

There is no evidence to view that the statistical data of the number of applicants for subscription for each newspaper contains "information about an individual who can identify a specific person" as stipulated in Article 7 (1) 6 of the Act, and in light of the above legal principles, unless there are other special circumstances, it cannot be said that the data itself constitutes "information with considerable reasons to make it difficult to perform his/her duties if disclosed" as defined in Article 7 (1) 4 of the Act.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the above information is "information which has considerable grounds to recognize that it would substantially be difficult to perform its duties when it is disclosed as a matter of execution and correction of a sentence." Thus, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts in violation of the law of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 7 (1) 4 and 6 of the Act.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)