1. Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act provides that "information pertaining to individuals, such as names, resident registration numbers, etc. included in the relevant information, which is acknowledged as likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals if disclosed." Article 9(1)6 of the same Act provides that "information prepared or acquired by a public institution, which is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the relief of rights of individuals, shall be excluded." Here, whether disclosure constitutes "information deemed necessary for the public interest" should be carefully determined by comparing and comparing the public interest, such as the privacy of individuals protected by non-disclosure and the public interest, such as securing transparency in state administration, which is protected by disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1424, Oct. 29, 2009).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below determined that the disclosure of "the name, age, area (other than specific lot number) of a prisoner (hereinafter referred to as "information of this case") recorded in the remaining information (including the information that does not contain the date of detention or the date of detention) other than that recorded in the list of inmates in Daejeon District Office (management No. D or E) from 1950 to 1951 or recorded in the date of detention on September 9, 28, 1950 or after February 1, 1951, contributes to the guarantee of citizen's right to know and the public interest of securing the transparency of the state authority's disposition of this case, rather than to the extent of infringement on private interest, such as the protection of individual privacy.

However, the records revealed as follows: ① The plaintiff is the deceased's bereaved family member who made a sacrifice of the Daejeon Prison in the judgment of the court below, i.e., the deceased, who was forced to commit a crime of sacrifice of the prisoner in the Daejeon District, including the deceased, and was transferred to the Daejeon District Office on or around December 1950, which was moved to the Daejeon District Office. On January 1, 1951, Seoul Special Metropolitan City residents who died were above 122, and carried out a memorial project such as the installation of a memorial tower. The information of this case was requested to disclose the information of this case. ② Since the information of this case includes the victims of the sacrifice of the prisoner in the Daejeon District Office, all of them cannot be viewed as victims of the Daejeon District, and since it is difficult to conclude that the information of this case is a victim of the sacrifice of the prisoner in the Daejeon District, such as the list of prisoners requesting the disclosure of information and the status of prisoners, etc., and it cannot be determined that the information of this case is more likely to infringe or protected by the private information of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the disclosure of the instant information constitutes "information deemed necessary for the public interest." It erred by misapprehending the legal principles on information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the Defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Gin-young