행정정보공개청구거부처분취소
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for revocation of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information pertaining to the information listed in Attachment 1 List 1.
1. On December 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on each of the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant information”). The Defendant rejected the disclosure on the ground that each of the instant information is personal information, the right of which is guaranteed by the subject of information pursuant to Articles 18(1) and 35(4) of the Personal Information Protection Act.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. We examine ex officio the determination as to the legitimacy of the suit as to the part concerning the information stated in Paragraph 1 of Attached Table 1 among the instant disposition.
In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by public institutions in its state, it is sufficient to prove that it is highly probable that a person seeking information disclosure will hold and manage the information that is sought by administrative agencies.
However, if a public institution fails to retain and manage such information, there is no legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition rejecting information disclosure, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.
(2) According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the revocation of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information under attached Table 1(1). In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the revocation of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information
3. Determination on the merits (each information described in paragraphs 2 through 4 of attached Table 1);
A. The Plaintiff’s respective information listed in [Attachment 1] List 2 to 4 cannot be deemed to be subject to protection of the Personal Information Protection Act, and the instant disposition is unlawful.
B. Attached statutes 2.