2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. Camp Hyeah was established from September 1950 to Busan Sin-Eup, Busan, and according to the U.S. military base reorganization strategies stationed overseas in the U.S., camp Landaland management plan around 2002 and the return procedure began.

B. The two countries of Korea and America conducted an environmental impact investigation for 105 days from February 4, 2006 to May 19, 2006 with a view to performing the procedures for returning camping, under the SOFA environmental regulations (hereinafter “the first environmental impact investigation”), and conducted an additional environmental impact investigation for 45 days from March 20, 2009 (hereinafter “the second environmental impact investigation”). On February 17, 2010, the Plaintiff requesting the Defendant to disclose the results of the first and second environmental impact investigation (hereinafter “the instant information”). However, on February 23, 2010, the Defendant recognized that the instant information could seriously interfere with the fair performance of the research or development of the information under Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Act”).

D. On the other hand, the Defendant stated that the instant disposition ground was added to Article 9(1)2 of the Act, when the date of the second pleading of the instant case became the date of pleading.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination

(1) Articles 1, 3, and 5 of the Act on the Standards for the Examination of Grounds for Non-disclosure and Responsibility for Evidence and Whether the grounds for non-disclosure fall under the grounds for non-disclosure provide that all citizens shall disclose information held and managed by public institutions in principle in order to guarantee citizens' right to know and secure citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state affairs. As such, a public institution requested to disclose information held and managed by the citizens shall disclose such information unless it falls under the grounds for non-disclosure as provided in each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Act. The public institution shall disclose it

In light of the legislative purpose and purport of the Act that guarantees citizens' right to know and ensure citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state affairs, public institutions should disclose information they hold and manage, in principle, and it is necessary to strictly interpret such information as an exception to disclosure of information as an exception to disclosure of information.

(2) Whether the information constitutes confidential information

Determination on the assertion that the information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 2 of the Opening Act

Article 9(1)2 of the Act provides that "information concerning national security, national defense, unification, diplomatic relations, etc., among the information held and managed by public institutions, which, if disclosed, may seriously harm national interests, may not be disclosed." However, the defendant does not constitute the information subject to non-disclosure as provided by Article 9(1)2 of the Act. The above ground does not mean that the information of this case constitutes the information subject to non-disclosure as provided by Article 9(1)2 of the Act. If disclosed, "information which has considerable reason to believe that the fair performance of duties or research and development would significantly interfere with the fair performance of duties or research and development." Thus, it shall not be allowed to claim that the defendant was a ground for disposition only when it was in the lawsuit of this case. Thus, it shall not be allowed to claim that the defendant was a ground for disposition. Even if the defendant's additional ground for disposition was not specified in the first disposition of this case, it shall not be deemed that the defendant had already existed at the time of disposition and the parties knew the fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20039Du38393, Dec. 1138, 2005.

In addition, the information of this case is about the result of the environmental pollution investigation of the Camp Ha, which is the US Forces base stationed in Busan, and it constitutes a diplomatic relation among countries within a broad meaning. However, in the case of disclosure, the disclosure of the information is underway between the governments of the two countries of the two countries of the United States of Korea and the United States as to whether the disclosure of the information would impede the progress of the negotiations or would affect the result of the negotiations so that it would be disadvantageous to the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Korea, so it is not sufficient to recognize that the disclosure of the above information would eventually seriously undermine the national interest, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the information of this case does not constitute the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)2 of the Act.

"Where there is a reasonable ground to believe that the fair performance of duties or the research and development significantly interfered with the disclosure" under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Act refers to the case where the fair performance of duties would substantially interfere with the fair performance of duties when disclosed in light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the Act and the legislative intent of the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Act. Whether the disclosure constitutes such a case shall be determined based on specific matters by comparing and comparing the interests of fairness in the performance of duties protected by non-disclosure and the interests of guaranteeing the people's right to know, guaranteeing the citizens' participation in state affairs, and securing the transparency of state administration (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2913, Jun. 10, 2010).

In this case, each of the matters cited in Article 9 (1) 5 of the Act is merely an example of the case where there is a considerable reason to recognize that the disclosure of the information of this case may seriously interfere with the fair performance, research, and development of the business. Thus, even if the information of this case does not fall under the matters cited in Article 9 (1) 5 of the Act, if the disclosure of the information of this case seriously interfere with the fair performance of the business, the defendant may refuse such disclosure. However, there is no evidence to prove that there is a high probability that the Ministry of Environment in charge of the affairs concerning the prevention of environmental pollution would significantly interfere with the fair performance of the general administrative affairs if the information of this case is disclosed, the information of this case does not fall under the information subject to non-disclosure as prescribed in Article 9 (1) 5 of the Act ( even if the disclosure of the information of this case is related to negotiations on the level of recovery of the pollution of the base to be returned to the United States in the Republic of Korea, such circumstance alone does not interfere with the duty of the Ministry of Environment 1).

The defendant asserts to the effect that the disposition of this case is legitimate in that Article 48-4 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Ministry of Environment Security Regulation provides that the leakage of material policies and projects may interfere with the implementation of such policies and projects, or the materials requiring special protection in the performance of duties shall be classified as secret or external expenses from the formulation stage. However, the above Enforcement Rule is merely an internal administrative rule for administrative affairs, and it does not externally bind the people or the court. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion on the different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.

Judges Ginsansan

Judges 00