2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on the list and resident registration numbers of adjudication members who participated in the Board of Audit and Inspection’s Administrative Appeals Commission (2014 Case 3) and their respective opinions.

B. On August 13, 2014, the Defendant rendered a decision to disclose part of the information (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the list of the adjudication members is subject to disclosure, resident registration numbers, contact numbers, etc.” under Article 19(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”). Each opinion of the members is subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act, Article 41 of the Administrative Appeals Act, and Article 29 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.”

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an objection on August 22, 2014, but was dismissed by the Defendant on August 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 29 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Appeals Act provides for non-disclosure information, and the Ordinance of the Prime Minister does not provide that "where the opinions of the administrative appeals committee are disclosed, it is likely to undermine the fairness of deliberation and adjudication of the committee". Moreover, the opinions of the administrative appeals committee do not affect the fairness of deliberation and adjudication even if the adjudication is completed and disclosed, the part of the administrative appeals committee's refusal to disclose each opinion of the members of the disposition

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "Any information held and managed by a public institution shall be disclosed to the public: Provided, That it may not be disclosed to the public with respect to the information prescribed as confidential or confidential by any other Act or any order delegated by any other Act (limited to the National Assembly Regulations, Supreme Court Regulations, Constitutional Court Regulations, Constitutional Court Regulations, National Election Commission Regulations, Presidential Decree, and municipal ordinances and municipal ordinances)." Article 41 of the Administrative Appeals Act and Article 29 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that "Any information concerning confidential information that is made by a member of the Committee, if disclosed, may interfere with the fairness of the Committee's deliberation and ruling, and any information that is deemed likely to interfere with the fairness of the Committee's deliberation and ruling, if disclosed."

(2) The instant case is a public health stand, ① the question and question related to the decision-making of the members of the Administrative Appeals Commission (Administrative Appeals Commission). As such, in order to guarantee free and active deliberation, there is a need to thoroughly guarantee that the members should not make any opinion or vote in the process of deliberation, even after the completion of the meeting. Since the psychological pressure due to the burden of disclosing the opinions and voting contents of the relevant members, it is impossible to lead and freely exchange the members in the process of deliberation, and even if there is a concern that the parties or external members may make a speech in harmony with their will or have an impliedly consistent opinion, it is necessary to prevent such a situation, and thus, it is necessary to promote the loyalty and internalization of deliberation by which the members focus on deliberation, and thus, it is guaranteed the appropriateness of the administrative adjudication affairs only because they are highly professional and subjective judgments and moral conscience, and thus, it is necessary to ensure that the members may freely express their opinions and make a statement in accordance with Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Appeals Act, and that the contents of the deliberation and decision-making of the Administrative Appeals Act are likely to be unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-won

Judges Domination