2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-fourth of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On March 25, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a request for information disclosure with the Defendant on March 25, 201, as an active person at the “B” of the Juvenile Labor Human Rights Network and the Human Rights Education Center, a non-profit public interest organization.

B. On April 15, 201, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on the ground that the instant information contains personal information, such as name and resident number, or contains matters concerning management and business secrets of corporations, organizations, or individuals, and that it is subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 and 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the instant information

A) Whether Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act is subject to non-disclosure

Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act excludes “information pertaining to individuals, such as names and resident registration numbers included in the pertinent information, which, if disclosed, is deemed likely to infringe on an individual’s privacy or freedom of privacy.” This aims at preventing infringement of legal interests by a third party, which may arise from the information disclosure, such as respect for an individual’s privacy and freedom, guarantee of an individual’s right to control information on him/her, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du12629, Jan. 13, 200).

This part of the information is largely composed of ① inspection table of work supervision in each workplace and ② employment contract attached thereto, ② written consent of the person with parental authority over the minor work, resume, resident registration copy, etc.First of all, the "inspection table of work supervision at workplace" includes the outline of workplace, status of workers, reasons for selection, inspection of the Labor Standards Act or matters violating the Minimum Wage Act, and the following matters: (i) it does not include individual workers' personal information; and (ii) it does not include the information of this part excluding the trade name and the lot number of the workplace, and it is not likely to infringe on the confidentiality or freedom of personal activity of the owner of the workplace. However, the name and the telephone number of the representative are written in the part of the "place of work." On the other hand, it is reasonable to view that this part is non-disclosure as personal information related to the owner of the workplace. (ii) Various documents attached to the inspection table of work supervision include personal identification information and salaries related to the employee's private life area, such as the school to which the "resident's name and resident registration number" belongs.

B) Of the information on whether the information is subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, the information is determined only to the information that is subject to non-disclosure. Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the information pertaining to the management and trade secrets of corporations, organizations, or individuals is subject to non-disclosure and that, if disclosed, is likely to seriously undermine the legitimate interests of the corporations, etc..

C) Sub-determination

As such, the plaintiff's assertion of "the inspection table of work supervision (except the name of the business site, representative's name, location, telephone number, resident number of workers, and worker's resident number)" concerning information 1 and 2 of the information of this case is reasonable, and the remaining arguments are without merit.

2) As to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the instant information

A) The information on whether it is subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act is ① after the labor inspector inspects the workplace of juvenile employment, ② After the inspection on the site of individual workplace, the report on the result of labor supervision on the detection of violations of labor-related Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Labor Standards Act or the Minimum Wage Act, ② the report on the details of guidance for correction, ② the report on the result of checking whether the corrective matters have been properly implemented, ③ the report on the result of checking whether the corrective matters have been properly implemented, ④ the attached documents on each of the above documents, ④ the written consent of the person with parental authority, the standard labor contract, the worker’s writing, and the worker’s resident registration certificate. Of the above information, ①, ②, the information is recognized as having concerns over infringing on the privacy or freedom of personal life due to disclosure of the above data, excluding the name of the workplace, representative’s name, location, and telephone number.

It is difficult to view that the information constitutes information that is closely related to the private life of the burning worker, such as the name, address, and resident registration number of the burning worker, family relation, etc., and even if considering the public nature of disclosing the employment of the burning worker and the status of administrative supervision of the burning worker with the instant information, compared with the above privacy protection interests, the disclosure of the information under Article 9(1)6(c) of the Information Disclosure Act does not constitute information that is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of rights of the individual.

B) Of the information on whether or not the information is subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, the information is determined only as long as the information is subject to non-disclosure prior to the disclosure, and under below, the information is determined only as ① or ③. The above information does not specify the business owner by excluding the name of the business place, representative’s name, location’s detailed lot number, telephone number, etc., and furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the above information contains the content of the business activities, such as production technology or business information, management policy, credit, accounting, etc. of the business owner. Thus, it cannot

C) Sub-determination

As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the labor supervision report, corrective instruction, confirmation and inspection report (excluding the name of each workplace, representative’s name, location, and telephone number) regarding the information of 3 and 4 of the instant information is with merit, and the remainder of the information is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeong Jae-hee

Judges Yang Jae-chul

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.