행정정보공개청구거부처분취소
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is currently holding a loan claim against B.
B. On April 8, 2020, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the deposited account number (including the pertinent financial institution’s name) of the public official pension received monthly from the Defendant (hereinafter “information of this case”) to the effect that “the Plaintiff requested the disclosure of information” (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”).
On April 20, 2020, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision as to the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the instant information concerns the third party’s personal information and constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”). [The grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute the non-disclosure decision on the Plaintiff’s claim [the grounds for recognition], Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence No. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The instant information that the Plaintiff sought disclosure is not subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.
B. The information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act includes not only “personal identification information” that determines whether the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure based on the type or type of information, such as resident registration number and resident registration number, but also “information that is likely to cause confidential information of an individual due to disclosure of personal information, etc., causing interference with personal and mental life or make it impossible to lead a free privacy,” by examining the details of the information in detail (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du2361, Jun. 18, 2012, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant information is the name of the person for whom the public official pension was paid by B.