정보공개결정처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion under Paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The possibility of disclosure of each of the instant information to a criminal suspect or a third party, who is not the victim, cannot be ruled out, and in this case, it is highly probable that the investigation and the maintenance of public prosecution may seriously interfere with the business affairs. Accordingly, each of the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act. In addition, each of the instant information constitutes information pertaining to the Plaintiff’s management and trade secrets and, if disclosed, likely to harm the legitimate interests of the corporation, etc., constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act.
B. Determination 1) In light of the purpose of the information disclosure system and the legislative intent of the information subject to non-disclosure, “information pertaining to an investigation, which has considerable grounds to recognize that the disclosure of which would significantly impede the performance of duties thereof,” as provided by Article 7(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act, is highly probable to directly and specifically obstruct the fair and efficient performance of duties pertaining to the prevention and investigation of a crime if disclosed, and the degree of such disclosure is obvious. Whether the information falls under this category shall be determined carefully depending on specific matters by comparing and comparing the interests protected by non-disclosure such as fairness in the performance of duties and the interests protected by disclosure, such as guaranteeing citizens’ right to know, guaranteeing citizens’ participation in state affairs, and securing transparency in state administration (see Supreme Court Decision 2008 November 27, 2008).