2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On September 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for the disclosure of information with respect to the Defendant’s notice of decision on the application for disclosure and partial disclosure (attached Form 7, excluding personal information) among all applications for disclosure of information received from the Defendant from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On October 4, 2013, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that the name and resident registration number of each claimant are most related to individuals, and that the name and resident registration number of each claimant are likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals provided for in Article 9(1)6 of the former Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the “Information Disclosure Act”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit in this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense

From 207 to January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information throughout the country accounts for 11.8% of the total 1,304 lawsuits filed nationwide during the same period, and the Plaintiff shows the winning rate of 86.8% of the above lawsuits, but there are many cases where the Plaintiff does not receive the disclosed information after the winning of the lawsuit, and the Plaintiff has received the litigation costs for the winning case, and there are cases where the Plaintiff claims litigation costs falsely and excessively. Thus, the purpose of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit is to recover the litigation costs, and the Plaintiff’s legal knowledge and experience in the information disclosure lawsuit is deemed to exist, and the Plaintiff’s appointment of the attorney and received the attorney’s fees as the litigation costs, in light of all the circumstances, such as the Plaintiff’s lawsuit constitutes an abuse of the right of lawsuit.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, although evidence No. 7 is written as evidence consistent with the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not have made a statement as stated in the evidence No. 7, and that it is difficult to immediately believe it. Even if the Plaintiff believed it, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s statement No. 7 merely stated in the evidence No. 7 was the only purpose of recovering litigation costs, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

(1) All citizens shall have the right to request the disclosure of information, and the information held and managed by the public institutions shall be disclosed in accordance with the Information Disclosure Act, and there is no special limitation on the purpose and frequency of the request.

② Although the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming similar information disclosure, the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted as a considerable part.

(3) The recovery of litigation costs in a winning case is limited to the exercise of the right by the winning party, and the cost of lawsuit is excessive. Even if a false claim is filed, only the legitimate amount of litigation costs shall be recognized through the final decision of the court.

④ It cannot be readily concluded that the assistance of the attorney is unnecessary due to having abundant legal knowledge and experience in the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking information disclosure, and it is unreasonable to recover the attorney’s fees from the litigation costs within the scope of the attorney’s fees prescribed by the Act.

⑤ Although it is true that the administrative power of the employees of the correctional institution is required to attend the trial date of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit demanding information disclosure, the Plaintiff’s failure to avoid the labor is only a result of granting all citizens the right to claim information disclosure and the right to file a lawsuit against the rejection disposition, and the right to know and the exercise of the right to claim information cannot be prevented due to side effects, such as the Defendant’s assertion.

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant lawsuit was abuse of power, and the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant information does not fall under the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, but can be partially disclosed, except where it is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals. Thus, the instant refusal disposition is unlawful.

2) In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant claim constitutes abuse of rights for the purpose of inducing the Defendant, regardless of the purport of the Information Disclosure Act that guarantees citizens’ right to know and secure transparency in state administration, considering the following: (a) the content and frequency of the Plaintiff’s request for information disclosure; (b) the Plaintiff did not pay fees without receiving the information subject to disclosure; and (c) the Plaintiff’s repetitive request for information disclosure is waste of administrative power of the Defendant and administrative agencies.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure 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 is "personal information, such as name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, which is deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual if disclosed," and this includes "information, other than simple personal identification information, where the disclosure of personal information leads to the disclosure of the individual's secret, etc., and where the disclosure of personal information is likely to interfere with personal and mental internal life or to interfere with free privacy." Meanwhile, the proviso of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "information prepared or acquired by a public institution and deemed necessary for protecting personal rights shall be excluded from the information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to the above provision." Here, the disclosure should be determined carefully in accordance with specific matters by comparing and comparing the interests of an individual, such as privacy, etc. protected by non-disclosure with the interests of an individual, which are protected by the disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Du23611, Jun. 18, 2012).

In light of the following circumstances, the information of this case (excluding personal information) does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, in light of the overall purport of the arguments and the evidence mentioned above.

① The Defendant alleged that the privacy of an individual might be infringed on because the information that the Plaintiff requested disclosure appears to relate to the name of the applicant for disclosure, the resident registration number, and other matters related to the individual. However, the Plaintiff already claimed the remaining information except the personal information at the time of the application for disclosure of the instant information, and excluded the part that could infringe on the privacy of the individual.

② In other cases where the Plaintiff requested the disclosure of information of the same type as the instant information, other prosecutor’s offices, etc. other than the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request, disclose the remainder

③ A notice of decision on a request for disclosure of information that the Plaintiff wants to disclose includes the requested information, details of disclosure, details of disclosure, reasons for disclosure, methods of disclosure, and details of calculation of fees. However, it is difficult to view that information that could infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals is excluded from personal information

Therefore, the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for information disclosure on the ground that the instant information constitutes Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act is unlawful.

2) Whether the instant request for information disclosure constitutes abuse of rights

Article 1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "the purpose of this Act is to guarantee citizens' right to know and secure citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state affairs by providing for matters necessary for the citizen's request for disclosure of information held and managed by public institutions and the duty of public institutions to disclose such information." In light of the purpose, content and purport of the Information Disclosure Act, barring special circumstances, such as where the disclosure of information is sought for the purpose of inducing the defendant, barring special circumstances, such as where the purpose of the Information Disclosure Act is not limited to the purpose of the request for information disclosure, the request for information disclosure does not constitute abuse of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1370, Sept. 23,

It is not sufficient to recognize that the information disclosure of this case is seeking solely for the purpose of bullying the defendant with only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, in an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or alter other grounds only to the extent that the grounds for the initial disposition are recognized as identical to the basic factual relations. The identity of the basic factual relations here is determined based on whether the underlying social factual relations are identical in that of the specific facts prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19021, Nov. 24, 201). However, the foregoing abuse of rights claim cannot be deemed identical to the original grounds for disposition under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, which is the initial grounds for disposition. Therefore, the addition of the above grounds for disposition is not allowed.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-young

Judges Kang Young-young