[2] The legislative intent of an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, which does not allow the assertion of a separate fact without identity of the original grounds for disposition and basic facts, as a ground for disposition, and whether the addition or alteration had already existed at the time of the original disposition, and whether the parties are identical to the original grounds for disposition, on the ground that they have been aware of such fact

[3] The case holding that the grounds under Article 7 (1) 4 and 6 of the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions, a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information, are not identical to the grounds under Article 7 (1) 5 of the same Act newly added

[2] In an appeal seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or alter other grounds only to the extent that the basic factual relations are recognized identical to the original grounds for the disposition, and the existence or absence of the basic factual relations in this context shall be determined based on whether the basic social factual relations are identical in the basic point of view by taking advantage of the specific facts before the legal evaluation of the grounds for the disposition is legally assessed, and the grounds for interpreting that it is not allowed to assert the grounds for the disposition on the grounds that are different from the basic factual relations are not recognized, by guaranteeing the other party’s right to defense of the administrative disposition, thereby realizing the rule of law and protecting the other party’s trust in the administrative disposition. The purport of the additional or modified grounds are to ensure that they are not specified in the original grounds for the disposition, and have already existed at the time of the disposition, and the parties have been aware of such facts

[3] The case holding that the grounds under Article 7 (1) 4 and 6 of the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions, a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information, are not identical to the grounds under Article 7 (1) 5 of the same Act newly added

1. Comprehensively considering the selected evidence, the court below rejected the Defendant’s request for disclosure of the same information on the agenda of the State Council (hereinafter “the instant information”) among the information stated in the list Nos. 1 and 2 of the court below’s judgment that the Plaintiff’s initial disposition of No. 5 of the instant information constitutes “the grounds for rejection of disclosure of the instant information” under Article 7(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, on the grounds that the information contained in No. 6 of the instant case’s No. 7 of the same information could substantially interfere with the Defendant’s execution of its duties because it contains the names and reasons for exclusion, etc., and thus, it is difficult to disclose such information as “personal information by name included in the instant information, etc.,” and that the Defendant’s initial disposition of No. 5 of the instant case’s No. 7 of the instant information constitutes a reasonable ground for rejection of disclosure of the instant information under the premise that it would substantially hinder the Defendant’s execution of its duties, and thus, it is difficult to find the Defendant’s right to disclose the instant information.

2. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Articles 1, 3, and 6 of the Act provide that all citizens shall disclose information held and managed by public institutions in principle in order to guarantee citizens' right to know and secure citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state administration. Thus, a public institution requested to disclose information held and managed by public institutions shall disclose such information unless it falls under non-disclosure grounds provided for in each subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the Act. Even if a public institution refuses such disclosure, it shall specifically confirm and examine the information subject to disclosure, and claim and prove the non-disclosure grounds provided for in Article 7(1)4 and 6 of the Act, in conflict with any legal interests or fundamental rights. Thus, it is not allowed to refuse disclosure for the following reasons. Thus, the whole purport of the disclosure of the information in this case by the Defendant, while refusing to disclose the information in this case, shall not be deemed to fall under non-disclosure grounds provided for in Article 7(1)4 and 6 of the Act.

In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, the agency may add or change other grounds only to the extent that the original and basic factual relations are recognized to be identical to the original and original grounds for the disposition. The existence of the factual relations here is determined based on whether the basic social factual relations are identical in a basic point prior to the legal evaluation of the grounds for the disposition, and it is not permitted to assert the grounds for the disposition on the grounds that are separate from the basic factual relations are not recognized. The purport of the interpretation is to realize the substantial rule of law and protect the trust of the other party to the administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu603, Jan. 19, 198; 98Du18565, Mar. 9, 199; 9Du6392, Mar. 23, 2001; 2008Du684, Sept. 28, 2001; 209Du86084, Sept. 28, 2001).

However, Article 7(1)4 of the Act provides for information pertaining to the prevention of and investigation into crimes, execution of punishment, correction, etc., which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds for remarkably obstructing the fair performance of duties. Subparagraph 5 provides for information pertaining to an individual by name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information as information subject to non-disclosure (hereinafter referred to as "personal identification information") and provides for information pertaining to an individual whose identity can be identified based on the name, resident registration number, etc., which is included in the information in question, as well as the fact that the purpose of subparagraph 4 and subparagraph 5 is to ensure the fair performance of duties or the fair performance of duties is to ensure that information is not identical to that of an individual, but to ensure that the aforementioned information is not subject to non-disclosure based on the following facts: (i) one-way and special prevention of crimes; (ii) smooth investigation and corrective administration; and (iii) the defendant’s use of non-disclosure information, which is not subject to non-disclosure; and (iv) the defendant’s use of non-disclosure information is entirely based on the aforementioned information’s basic purpose of non-disclosure and non-disclosure information.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the identity of the disposition reason, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, in determining that the grounds under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Act added by the defendant as the disposition reason are identical to the original disposition reason under Article 7 (1) 4 and 6 of the Act.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)