2. After the establishment of the Government of the Republic of Korea in June 20, 2013 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on June 20, 2013, the Defendant’s decision to disclose information non-disclosure regarding the name, affiliation, reason, and type of decoration by the Government of the Republic of Korea from June 10, 2013 is revoked.

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

After the establishment of the Government of the Republic of Korea in 1948 against the Plaintiff on June 20, 2013, the Defendant revoked the decision to disclose information non-disclosure on the name, post, reason, and type of decoration by the Government of the Republic of Korea from June 10, 2013.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) The instant information is not subject to disclosure because it is not likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals under the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

2) The instant information pertains to the public act of a decoration, which is related to the public act of a decoration, and is to verify the public nature, transparency, etc. of the awarding of the decoration by analyzing the details of the award through the publication, to satisfy the citizen’s right to know about the granting of the decoration, and further, to strengthen the citizen’s right to monitor and control the awarding of the decoration, while there are no special interests that may be infringed, the instant information constitutes information to be disclosed because it constitutes a case where disclosing the information prepared by a public institution as stipulated in the proviso of Article 9(1)6(c) of the Information Disclosure Act as necessary for the public interest.

3) Article 8-2 of the Awards and Decorations Act establishes the status of a national decoration, and establishes a new decoration in order to enhance transparency in selection and honor of a person eligible for a decoration, and establishes a new decoration in order to publish the relevant person’s name in the Official Gazette, and does not make information subject to non-disclosure due to the amendment under the above provision, and thus confirms that the details of the decoration, which became effective before November 5, 201, are information subject to disclosure, is also subject to disclosure.

4) The instant information is not personal information prescribed by the Personal Information Protection Act with respect to at least the deceased persons among those who received a decoration, and its disclosure does not conflict with the Personal Information Protection Act.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Markets:

1) Relevant legal principles

A) Examining the contents of the privacy and freedom guaranteed under the Constitution, such as the history, content, and purport of the amendment of the Information Disclosure Act, the information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act includes not only “personal identification information which determines whether the information constitutes non-disclosure” but also “information which may interfere with personal and mental life or be unable to freely engage in private life,” based on the type or type of information, such as name, resident registration number, etc. under the former Information Disclosure Act (wholly amended by Act No. 7127, Jan. 29, 2004) but also “personal identification information which determines whether the information constitutes non-disclosure” but also “information which may interfere with the disclosure of the information.” (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2361, Jun. 18, 2012).

B) Meanwhile, whether the disclosure of information constitutes “information deemed necessary for the public interest” under the proviso of Article 9(1)6(c) of the Information Disclosure Act ought to be carefully determined depending on specific matters by comparing and comparing the interests of individuals protected by non-disclosure such as the protection of their privacy and the public interest such as securing transparency in state administration protected by the disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du1317, Dec. 13, 2007; 201Du2361, Jun. 18, 2012).

2) Whether the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act

According to the above legal principles, the name of a person who received a decoration from the government of the Republic of Korea falls under "name" as provided by Article 9 (1) 6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed information subject to non-disclosure as an "personal identification information" (Provided, That as examined in Article 9 (1) 3 of the Information Disclosure Act, it is reasonable to view the information as information deemed necessary to be disclosed for public interest

Next, the part of the information of this case, excluding the above name, is merely the position, reason, and decoration of the person who received a decoration, and it is not open to the public in combination with the name, and it is difficult to view that the disclosure of personal information constitutes "information that may cause interference with personal and mental life or make it difficult to freely lead a private life" and there is no other evidence to prove that the information of this case is a non-disclosure subject matter.

3) Whether the disclosure of the instant information is deemed necessary for the public interest

(5) In light of the following circumstances revealed by the purport of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and pleadings, (i) it is reasonable to view that information pertaining to the conferment of decoration constitutes information pertaining to public life closely related to property rights and equality of all the citizens, rather than information on personal life; (ii) disclosure of information pertaining to the conferment of decoration to the public in the Official Gazette requires the disclosure of such information to satisfy the citizens’ right to know; and (iii) disclosure of information related to the conferment of decoration is reasonable by ensuring that the disclosure of information falls under the scope of disclosure and control of the public interest, based on the following information that is deemed necessary for the disclosure of such information in the Official Gazette; and (iv) disclosure of information related to the conferment of decoration is more likely to achieve the public interest of the public; and (v) disclosure of information, such as disclosure and control of the relevant information, based on the public interest of the relevant persons, including disclosure of the relevant information, by allowing them to satisfy the citizens’ right to know; and (v) disclosure and disclosure of such information in the Official Gazette.

Therefore, the instant disposition, which is based on a different premise, is unlawful.

4) Whether the disclosure of the instant information violates the Personal Information Protection Act

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the purport of the relevant statutes and the entire pleading, namely, ① Article 18(2)2 of the Personal Information Protection Act provides that a personal information manager may provide personal information to a third party except when there is a possibility of unfairly infringing on the interests of an owner of information or a third party; ② as seen earlier, the Defendant is obligated to disclose the instant information under the Information Disclosure Act; ② as the Defendant is obligated to disclose the instant information under other Acts, it constitutes “where there is a special provision in other Acts”; ③ in determining the existence of the Defendant’s duty to disclose the instant information; ③ the risk of unfairly infringing on the interests of the owner of information or a third party; ③ on the other hand, on the other hand, it is determined that the disclosure of the instant information does not violate the relevant provisions of the Personal Information Protection Act, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) by interpreting and applying the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes; and (b) on the other hand, on the other hand, the fundamental rights of citizens, which are the right to know, other than the fundamental rights of citizens

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance, which concluded differently even though the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of its reason, is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling it and accepting the plaintiff's claim.

Judges Lee Young-hwan

Judges Kim Gin-tae

A person shall be appointed.