beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.09 2016누45327

정보공개거부처분취소

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The grounds for this Court’s explanation in the cited part of the judgment of the court of first instance

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

3. During judgment

(a) relevant legislation;

B. The phrase “whether Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act applies” is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (2, 1, 4, and 15). Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. Based on Article 41(4) of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act and Article 62(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant asserts that the disclosure of the instant information may be denied on the grounds that the Defendant constitutes “other Acts” under Article 4(1) of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act and Article 62(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Article 4(1) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “Any disclosure of information shall be governed by this Act, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts.” In order to exclude the application of the Information Disclosure Act by falling under “where there are special provisions in other Acts with respect to information disclosure,” the special provisions shall be “Act,” and further, the contents shall be differently provided for in the Information Disclosure Act with respect to the subject and scope of information disclosure, procedures for information disclosure, information

(1) Article 62(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Punishment and Execution Act, which provides that the records of meeting can be provided to related agencies only when necessary for the court’s performance of judicial duties, investigation of crimes, institution and maintenance of public prosecution, is merely a Presidential Decree, rather than a “law,” and Article 41(4) of the Act, which is a superior statute, provides that the records of meeting shall be provided.