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

On June 8, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of information on the information listed in the separate sheet, and the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision on June 17, 2009 on the following grounds (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(1) Information listed in attached list 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 is related to the organization, organization, and activities of the NIS and constitutes “information collected or prepared for the purpose of analyzing information related to national security by an agency in charge of information related to national security and security affairs” under Article 4(3) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”); “information concerning national security, etc. which, if disclosed, is deemed likely to seriously undermine the national interest if disclosed, seriously undermine the national interest” under Article 9(1)2 of the same Act and “personal information, such as name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, is deemed likely to infringe on the individual’s privacy or freedom.”

(2) The information listed in attached list No. 5 shall be subject to the proviso to Article 8 (1) of the Information Disclosure Act “where information that may not be disclosed pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 (1) is included in the list of information”.

③ The information listed in the attached list Nos. 6 and 7 is “information prescribed as confidential or confidential by law” in accordance with Article 9(1)1 of the Information Disclosure Act and Article 6 of the National Intelligence Service Act;

(4) In addition, the information listed in the attached list Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 is related to a claim for damages that is in progress, and falls under “information related to a trial in progress” listed in Article 9(1)4 of the Information Disclosure Act.

⑤ In relation to the information listed in paragraph (4) of the attached list, the National Intelligence Service does not keep and manage the above information since it did not have provided or supported materials to the prosecution.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Although the information listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “information of this case”) does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the proviso of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, the disposition of this case refusing to disclose is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The Plaintiff’s reasoning network corporation (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was established on May 23, 2001 and engaged in multi-level marketing business. The parent company of the ○ Group composed of 25 companies, including Nonparty 1, a door-to-door seller company, and Plaintiff 2, a representative director of the Plaintiff company, is the chairman of the ○○ Group.

(2) From June 2004, the Defendant’s domestic information collection team (TF) collected relevant information from around June 2004, based on its internal report that “○○ Group created illegal funds and spreads money or goods widely to related persons,” such as the following: (a) around January 2005, the Defendant’s domestic information collection team collected information from around June 2004; and (b) around January 2005, the Defendant’s internal report on “○○ Group raised illegal funds and distributed money or goods widely to related persons.”

(3) The information in the separate list Nos. 1 through (5) is a document in the form of a report made on or around January 2005 with the aforementioned background. The above document is a large number of title ① (1) , ② ○○ Group’s status, and Plaintiff 2’s recent special trends (2) , ③ ○○ Group’s status of creation and spread of illegal funds by Plaintiff 2’s president 3 , ④ “actual impact on Plaintiff 2’s illegal funds” (3) , ⑤ “Evaluation and Consideration” (4) , ⑤ ○○ Network △△△△△ Group’s impact on the city” (5) , ② ○○ Group and Plaintiff 2 are facing the crisis of insolvency and providing illegal funds to the authorities and transfer part of it to a foreign country, ③ the specific case and name of the recipient of the illegal funds and the position as to the provision of the funds, ⑤ the relationship between Plaintiff 2 and the government office receiving the money and valuables, ⑤ The contents of the plan should be minimized to the extent of the illegal funds.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, the result of non-disclosure information verification conducted by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant asserts to the effect that there is no legal interest in seeking revocation, since the National Intelligence Service provided or supported the above data to the prosecutor, among the information of this case as stated in Paragraph 4 of the attached list, the claim on this part is seeking the disclosure of information not retained and managed by the defendant.

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 6 of the NIS, it is acknowledged that Nonparty 2, who served as the head of the ○○ Group, stated in the relevant criminal case that “the report was prepared at the ○○ Group’s office around January 2005, which was reported to the Cheong○ Group around January 2005, which was arranged again according to the instructions of the head of the NIS at the time of January 2006, and delivered it to the prosecution.” The above statement was considerably reliable when considering the status and the body of the contents of Nonparty 2’s statement in consideration of the above Nonparty 2’s personal nature, so it is deemed that there is considerable probability that the Defendant has kept and managed it by arranging the contents delivered to the prosecution in writing regarding the report on the ○○ Group’s corruption. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion contrary thereto is without merit.

E. Determination on the merits

(1) Whether a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on the information listed in [Attachment 1 to 5] is legitimate

(A) According to the above facts, it is evident that the information of this case is not "information relating to national security or information collected or prepared for the purpose of analyzing information pertaining to national security or information related to national security, which is collected or prepared for the purpose of national security or information related to national security" under Article 4 (3) of the Information Disclosure Act, or "information concerning national security, which, if disclosed, is likely to seriously undermine national interest" under Article 9 (1) 2 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(B) Meanwhile, Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that one of the information subject to non-disclosure refers to "personal information, such as name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, could infringe on an individual's privacy or freedom of privacy." Article 9(1)6 of the same Act provides that "information prepared or acquired by a public institution, which is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the relief of an individual's rights, is excluded."

Whether disclosure of information constitutes "information deemed necessary for the public interest" under Article 9 (1) 6 of the Information Disclosure Act shall be determined carefully in accordance with specific cases by comparing and comparing the public interest, such as protecting privacy of individuals protected by non-disclosure and securing transparency in state affairs protected by disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4610, Mar. 14, 2003) with the public interest, such as securing transparency in state affairs protected by disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4610, Mar. 14, 2003). Of the instant information identified by the above facts, the name and position of the recipient of the money and valuables can be identified as information identifying a specific individual, and in light of privacy protection of such individual, the above information cannot be disclosed. In particular, unless the authenticity of the facts is verified, it cannot be readily concluded that the disclosure of the above information contributes to the public interest, such as corruption of the public service society, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the interest protected by the

Therefore, among the information in the attached list Nos. 1 through 5, the name, work office, and position of the recipient of the money and valuables constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and the information under the proviso of item (c) of the same subparagraph does not constitute “information that is deemed necessary for the public interest.”

(C) Furthermore, among the information listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 5, the name of the recipient of the money and valuables and whether the partial disclosure of the remainder, excluding the office of work and position, should be permitted.

In a case where the court examines whether a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by an administrative agency is unlawful, and where it recognizes that the information refused to disclose is mixed with the part falling under the non-disclosure subject to disclosure, and that the part concerning the non-disclosure subject to disclosure can be separated from the part concerning the non-disclosure subject to disclosure without any modification to the purport of the request for disclosure, the court may order the partial revocation of the part concerning the non-disclosure subject to disclosure, and where the part concerning the non-disclosure subject to disclosure can be separated from the part concerning the non-disclosure subject to disclosure within the extent not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, not the case where the two parts can be physically separated, but it does not mean that the relevant information can be excluded or deleted from the technology related to the non-disclosure subject to disclosure, and it is worth disclosure only with the other part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du12707, Dec. 9, 2004; 2003Du767, Oct. 10, 2003).

However, according to the above facts, the information listed in the separate list Nos. 1 through 5 is the core contents of ○○ Group’s political and related personnel, and a list of money and valuables recipients. Even if it is excluded or deleted from the above information, it is highly likely to identify personal information through specific cases, details of money and valuables received, etc., and it is difficult to separate the relevant matters, and it cannot be deemed that the disclosure of the remaining information is worth disclosing.

Therefore, the defendant may choose not to disclose the remainder except the information subject to non-disclosure among the information in the attached list 1 to 5.

(D) Ultimately, in disclosing the instant information, the Defendant erred by listing the grounds, such as information related to national security under Article 4(3) of the Information Disclosure Act, and Article 9(1)2 of the Information Disclosure Act. However, the instant disposition is lawful, on the grounds that it is deemed that the instant disposition may infringe on the privacy or freedom of private life under Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(2) Whether a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on the information listed in [Attachment 6 and 7] is legitimate

Of the instant information, the information listed in Articles 6 and 7 of the [Attachment List Nos. 6 and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act is related to the organization and activities of the “defeat (TF) Team,” which is the domestic information collection team under the Defendant’s jurisdiction, and in light of the purpose of the National Intelligence Service’s establishment or the nature of its duties, etc., which is the national information agency whose main duty is the information collection activities on national security, whose duties is the information collection activities on national security, and whose duties are characterized by the purpose of the National Intelligence Service’s establishment or non-disclosure, if disclosed, the information is likely to considerably impede the efficient performance of essential duties related to national security and the maintenance of security. Thus, the above information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure as “information prescribed by the Act on Information Disclosure

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the disposition of this case refusing to disclose the information of this case is legitimate, and the plaintiffs' assertion on this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)