The part concerning information other than resident registration numbers, addresses, occupations, and telephone numbers of AA and AA shall be revoked in the course of regular disposition.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

On December 14, 2016, the Defendant revoked the disposition of non-disclosure of information on the information listed in the separate sheet against the Plaintiff.

A. On February 9, 2016, the Plaintiff church thought that the Defendant applied for the change of the name of the representative in its business registration, and requested the disclosure of information on the history of the application for the change of the name of the representative and the entire application form (information stated in the attached list).

B. On December 14, 2016, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-disclosure of information (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the grounds that “the information that the Plaintiff church requested to disclose to the Plaintiff church shall not be disclosed pursuant to Article 9(1)13 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes as taxpayer’s tax information.”

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff church's assertion

1) The information on the history of applying for change of the name of the representative for which the Plaintiff church requested disclosure to the Defendant does not correspond to the “tax information” under Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and even if the above information is taxation information, the Plaintiff church does not correspond to the “other person” under Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act, Article 81-13(1)

2) Furthermore, the information for which the Plaintiff church seeks disclosure does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On April 11, 1995, the Plaintiff church was an unincorporated association established on and around April 11, 1995 and belonged to the AAAD religious order. On November 27, 2016, the Plaintiff church held a temporary church and resolved to leave the religious order with 31 members present, 28 members, 1 members, 2 members, 30 members, 30 members, 1 members, and 1 member of the International Independent Association respectively, and decided to see AA as its representative from among 33 members registered.

2) In accordance with the above resolution, AA notified on November 28, 2016 of the withdrawal from the religious order to the Aeronautical Council of the Stage, and on December 2, 2016, AA sent on December 2, 2016 as the representative of the plaintiff church.

3) AA filed an application against A for provisional disposition prohibiting the use of a position as the representative of a church with the U.S. district court support 2016Kahap178. On January 20, 2017, the above court rendered a decision dismissing the above application of AA on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a defect in the above provisional resolution of the Plaintiff church on the date of the said provisional resolution of the Plaintiff church, and that unless the Plaintiff church legitimately withdraws from the Korea Dental Supervisory Association and appoints AA as its representative, it cannot be deemed that AA was legally appointed as the representative or acting as the representative of the Plaintiff church, and the above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

4) On December 6, 2016, after the withdrawal from the religious order of a plaintiff church, AA had various property disposal activities as the representative of the plaintiff church, including the application for determination of the amount of litigation costs and the withdrawal of the application for execution of real estate auction among the plaintiff church and the plaintiff church, which were the members of the plaintiff church.

5) On behalf of the Defendant, on December 7, 2016, AA submitted a business registration statement under Paragraph 1 of the attached Table changing the name of the representative of the Plaintiff church from "AA to "AA" from "AA", and submitted a written withdrawal of business registration under Paragraph 3 of the same attached Table that revokes the above business registration report on the following day (hereinafter referred to as "the information of this case"). According to the result of the non-disclosure inspection of this court, it is recognized that AA submitted a written petition and attached documents as of January 31, 2017, but the Plaintiff church filed a request for information disclosure to the Defendant on December 9, 2016, the transfer, and the information subject to disclosure was completely identified as "the history of filing an application for change of the name of the representative" and the purport of the claim of this case also is identical, and it is not reasonable to determine whether the above written petition and attached documents are subject to disclosure, since they are not subject to disclosure information sought by the Plaintiff church.

D. Determination

1) Whether it falls under Article 81-13(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "information specified as confidential or non-disclosure information by other Acts or any order issued under other Acts" shall be classified as information subject to non-disclosure. Article 81-13(1) main sentence and (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (hereinafter referred to as "tax information") provides or divulges to other persons, or uses for purposes other than the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes, data submitted by a taxpayer to fulfill the tax liability prescribed by tax-related Acts, or data acquired in the course of business for the purpose of imposing or collecting national taxes (hereinafter referred to as "tax information"). In light of the above provisions, other person's tax information constitutes "information specified as non-disclosure by other Acts" under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1544, Mar. 12, 2004).

Therefore, without further review on the remaining points, the information of this case cannot be deemed as subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (In so doing, Article 81-14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "tax officials shall provide information promptly upon the taxpayer's request for information necessary for the exercise of the taxpayer's right." In other words, the following circumstances recognized as follows: ① the representative of the plaintiff church who requested disclosure of the information of this case as the representative of the plaintiff church is the legitimate representative of the plaintiff church; ② although AA does not recognize the legitimate religious order withdrawal and the representative of the plaintiff church's moving from the order of religious order without the qualification of the plaintiff church, it refers to the act of disposal of the property by referring to the representative of the plaintiff church as the representative of the plaintiff church; ③ under the circumstance that it is likely to continuously cause disputes related to the representative and property, it is reasonable to deem the information of this case as subject to disclosure under Article 81-14 of the Framework Act.

2) Determination on the grounds for further disposition by the Defendant in this Court

A) Whether additional grounds for disposition are permitted

In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or modify other reasons only to the extent that the original reason and basic factual relations are recognized to be identical, and the existence of such basic factual relations is determined based on whether the grounds for disposition are identical in basic social facts in light of the specific facts prior to legal evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du8395, Dec. 11, 2003; 2009Du19021, Nov. 24, 201).

Article 9(1)6 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 7(4) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act provide that the disposition of this case is lawful on the ground that the information of this case constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 7(4) of the Act on the Treatment of Civil Petitions. The Defendant added the grounds that the disposition of this case is lawful on the ground that the Defendant’s disposition of this case should not be disclosed to others in principle. The reason that Article 81-13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which is based on the disposition of this case, is the purport that the information of this case should not be disclosed to others. The reason that the above provision provides information as non-disclosure information, is highly likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom if disclosed, and is related to the corporation’s management and business confidential information. Thus, the disposition of this case is in fact related to Article 9(1)6 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, and Article 7 of the Act on the Treatment of Civil Petitions, etc., which the Defendant presented, should be allowed by adding the grounds for treatment Act.

B) Whether it falls under Article 7 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act

Article 9(1) proviso of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “Any information prescribed as confidential or non-public information by other Acts or subordinate statutes shall not be disclosed in order to guarantee citizens’ right to know and secure citizens’ participation in state affairs and transparency in the management of state affairs.” The legislative intent of the Act is to protect civil petitioners who are stipulated in other Acts or subordinate statutes, such as confidential or non-public information, and to prevent the disclosure of information under the proviso of Article 9(1) proviso of the Information Disclosure Act from being disclosed. The legislative purpose of the Act is to protect civil petitioners who are not confidential or non-public information, and to prevent the disclosure of information under the proviso of Article 9(1) proviso of the Information Disclosure Act from being disclosed to the public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2913, Jun. 10, 2010).

The term "business and trade secrets of a corporation, etc." under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act refers to all the information on business activities, which is reasonable not to be known to others, or all the confidential information on business activities (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du13392, Dec. 23, 2010). Ultimately, it is reasonable to deem that the pertinent corporation, etc., which is not a third party, requests the disclosure of its information to it does not fall under the case where it is requested by the relevant corporation, etc..

D) Whether it falls under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act

The main text of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that one of the information subject to non-disclosure includes not only "personal identification information which determines whether the information constitutes non-disclosure based on the name, resident registration number, or other form or type of information, but also "personal information that could cause interference with personal life or free privacy, if disclosed." In light of the legislative history, content, and purport of the Information Disclosure Act, the content of the privacy and freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, which is protected under the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, but also "personal identification information that determines whether the information is non-disclosure based on the type or type of information, such as name, resident registration number, or other information." As a result, the information pertaining to the information pertaining to the representative of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du2361, Jun. 18, 2012).

As seen earlier, AA filed an application for provisional injunction against the use of a church representative with AA and the withdrawal of an application for determination of the amount of litigation costs and an application for auction, etc. against AA. In this case, the name of AA and AA shall not be deemed to fall under the said provision in light of the circumstances in which the AA and AA directly submitted a corrective statement of business registration and a written withdrawal of business registration on behalf of the AA, etc.: Provided, That the resident registration number, address, occupation, and telephone number of A and AA are private matters and such personal information is disclosed, and there is a concern that legitimate interest, such as privacy, may be infringed if disclosed, and the said personal information does not necessarily fall under the case necessary for protecting the rights of the Plaintiff. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the above personal information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7(1)6 of the Information Disclosure

(2) The remainder except personal information

Of the instant information, it is difficult to readily conclude that the disclosure of personal information, other than the above personal information, particularly with the disclosure of personal information, constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, inasmuch as it is difficult to readily conclude that the disclosure of personal information leads to the disclosure of confidential information about an individual, and as a result, it is likely to interfere with personal and mental internal life or lead to free privacy.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, among the instant information, parts other than resident registration numbers, addresses, occupations, and telephone numbers of AA and AA are information subject to disclosure, and only those parts can be disclosed and are worth disclosure. Thus, among the instant dispositions, the part refusing to disclose the above information should be revoked illegally.