[2] The scope of information subject to non-disclosure pursuant to the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act and the method of determining whether the “information disclosure is deemed necessary for the public interest” under the proviso (c) of the same Article

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense that the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation as Seoul Administrative Court No. 2012-Gu 33645 was unlawful since November 29, 201, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the information disclosure refusal disposition is the Defendant’s refusal disposition as of November 29, 2011, and the subject matter of the instant disposition or the omission as of November 29, 201, and the Defendant’s refusal disposition as of November 29, 201, constitutes the premise of the instant claim.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In a lawsuit for confirmation of illegality of omission under Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act, the purpose of a lawsuit is to remove a passive illegal state that is an omission or non-compliance with an administrative agency's response promptly by ascertaining that the omission is illegal if the administrative agency fails to comply with a legal obligation to respond to a request based on a legal or sound right within a reasonable period of time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu11278, Jun. 9, 1992; 96Nu1634, May 14, 1996).

The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on January 5, 2012, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff filed an application for disclosure of information with the Defendant on January 5, 2012; (b) the Defendant is deemed to have made a non-disclosure decision because it did not make a decision on whether to disclose information within the period prescribed by statutes; (c) the Plaintiff was subject to the ruling by the Central Administrative Appeals Commission to disclose information subject to the said application; (d) the Defendant actively contests the Plaintiff’s claim; and (c) the Defendant did not disclose information in accordance with the purport of the instant ruling on January 5, 2012; and (d) the Defendant is obligated to disclose information sought by the Plaintiff upon the request of the Plaintiff upon the request of the transfer; and (d) the Plaintiff’s request for confirmation of illegality by indirect coercion, etc. under Articles 38(2) and 34(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (e) the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of illegality of omission does not constitute an unlawful act.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legal requirements

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

1) Pursuant to the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), information subject to non-disclosure shall include not only “personal personally identifiable information” but also “personal confidential information, etc., whose disclosure of personal information constitutes non-disclosure based on the type or type of information, such as name, resident registration number, etc., is known, and as a result, “information that may cause interference with personal and mental internal life or make it impossible to lead a free private life” (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2011Du2361, Jun. 18, 2012; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and whether disclosure of information constitutes “information deemed necessary for the public interest” should be determined by comparing the interests protected by the disclosure and operation of personal information with the interests protected by the Supreme Court 201Du2361, Jun. 18, 2012 (see, 201).

2) The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the part of “employee” in the details of the use of entertainment expenses, etc. that the Plaintiff sought to disclose constitutes “information deemed necessary for the public interest” under Article 9(1)6(c) of the Information Disclosure Act, and that the part of “employee” constitutes information subject to non-disclosure as personal identification information, and revoked the part of “employee in need of non-disclosure.” The specific grounds are as follows.

① Considering the public nature of performing duties, capital structure and governance, contents and necessity of administrative management and supervision, financial support or policy decision-making, etc., the purport of the provision on the legal fiction of public officials in the application of penal provisions against executives and employees of the defendant, the purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, such as guaranteeing citizens’ right to know information held and managed by public institutions, guaranteeing citizens’ participation in state affairs, and securing transparency in state administration, employees belonging to the defendant have important roles and social responsibilities in performing their roles and functions as equivalent to public officials.

② In order to ensure the defendant's fair performance of duties and prevent the defendant's poor management, transparency needs to be ensured as much as possible in using entertainment expenses, meeting expenses, etc. as part of the defendant's performance of duties.

3. Accordingly, the interests protected by disclosure are greater than those protected by the non-disclosure of this part.

3) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of

D. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the “user” portion among the details of the use of entertainment expenses, etc. that the Plaintiff sought to disclose constitutes information subject to non-disclosure, on the ground that there is no risk of undermining the legitimate interests of the Defendant or restaurant business entity, even if disclosed.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the information subject to non-disclosure under Article

E. Ground of appeal No. 5

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the instant disposition was solely for the purpose of coercing the Defendant, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of the instant disposition constituted an abuse of rights.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on abuse of rights or by violating the Supreme Court precedents, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. As to the ground of incidental appeal by the Plaintiff

The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the instant disposition, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 and 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, on the part of “the name of the customer in need of disclosure” among the details of the Plaintiff’s use, such as entertainment expenses, which the Plaintiff is seeking disclosure, where the name of the person in charge of the customer in charge of the customer in need of disclosure, who is not a public institution, could infringe on the individual’s privacy and freedom of privacy, and could impede the smooth and efficient promotion of the Defendant’s business, and there is no circumstance to deem that the interests protected by disclosure are superior to the interests protected by the non-disclosure.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by the military unit, there were no errors by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on information subject to non-disclosure

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals and incidental appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)