2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Since the establishment of the government on September 6, 2010 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 6, 2010, the Defendant revoked the decision of non-disclosure of information on the Order of Civil Merit awarded by the Government (excluding resident registration numbers), which had been issued to the Plaintiff by the Government, as well as on the address or origin of the recipient, name, date of birth (including resident registration numbers), and official photographs (including resident registration numbers). The Defendant shall implement the procedures for disclosure of the above information to the Plaintiff, and if the Defendant fails to perform the above obligations seven days after the decision of this case became final and conclusive, it shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to three million won per day of delay.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff seeking the revocation below shall be revoked. Since the establishment of the government on September 6, 2010 by the defendant against the plaintiff on September 6, 2010, the decision of non-disclosure of information regarding the address or origin of the recipient of the Order of Civil Merit (excluding the certificate of Rose of Sharon, Madmony), name, date of birth (excluding resident registration number), and merit (hereinafter collectively referred to as "information of this case") awarded by the government until now shall be revoked.

A. On September 3, 2010, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose “after the establishment of the Government in 1948, the name, address, date of birth, and its official (including photographs) of the Order of Military Merit awarded by the Government until now:

B. On September 6, 2010, the Defendant rendered a decision of non-disclosure in accordance with Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and notified the Plaintiff of the decision of non-disclosure on the ground that the information the disclosure of which was requested by the Plaintiff was likely to infringe on an individual’s privacy or freedom of privacy (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant information, even if disclosed, is rather broad for those subject to disclosure, and constitutes information that is not likely to infringe upon an individual’s honor or right to privacy.

(2) It is necessary for the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs to widely inform the people of the meritorious deeds that have been dedicated to the State or society through the disclosure of the instant information, to inspire the people with a sense of good honor and respect their honor. In light of the case where the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans withdraws the meritorious deeds containing the official information of the persons of distinguished services to the national independence, it is desirable for private organizations to publish the Order of Merit (pathm path path path path path path path path and path path pa

(3) The plaintiff confirmed that social guidance stories were dead and the state theory was divided, and that the present state had provided service for the nation and the nation in the present state where the state theory was divided, and confirmed the personal information and address of the winners of the Order of Civil Merit (Umpath, path and Madmon) and confirmed their intent, and led to the lawsuit in this case with a plan and purpose to serve the people.

(4) Since the disclosure of the instant information is necessary for the public interest, the instant disposition rejecting the disclosure of the instant information is not unlawful, not the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "personally identifiable information, such as name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of an individual (hereinafter referred to as "personally identifiable information")." 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 the protection of an individual's rights, shall be excluded." This provision aims to respect the privacy and freedom of an individual and, at the same time, to prevent infringement of legal interests that may arise from the disclosure of information by guaranteeing the right to control the individual's privacy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12629, Jan. 13, 2006). Whether disclosure constitutes "information deemed necessary for the public interest," and whether disclosure constitutes "information, such as personal identification information, which is deemed necessary for the public interest, should be determined carefully by comparing and comparing the public interest protected by the disclosure with those protected by the private information, etc.

(2) First of all, the instant information pertaining to the Plaintiff’s name, address, or origin, date of birth, and public service of the recipient of the Order of Civil Merit (U.S.), which is subject to disclosure, is likely to infringe on an individual’s privacy or freedom, if disclosed, regardless of the owner’s intent.

Therefore, the instant information constitutes personal identification information subject to non-disclosure under the main sentence of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(3) Next, it is difficult to view that the instant information falls under the information to be disclosed on the basis of the proviso to Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act upon request for public interest solely on the basis of the following determination as to whether the disclosure of the instant information is necessary for public interest in the specific case of the instant case.

(A) The Plaintiff asserts that prior deeds and service spirit of the recipients of the Order of Civil Merit (pathmosis, Madmony) will be widely known to the public when securing the instant information. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s assertion and occupation and various circumstances, it appears that the specific method would be to publish the details of the decoration and personal information of the recipients of the Order of Civil Merit in the form of a book or publication. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s disclosure of the instant information has a high aspect of pursuing profit-making.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that he will serve the public by identifying the personal information and address of the recipients of the Order of Civil Merit and identifying them. According to this, if the instant information is disclosed, the right to not be interfered with by another person against his will, which is the core part of the privacy or freedom of the recipients of the Order of Civil Merit, may be unduly infringed.

Even if the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs published the official title of the persons of distinguished services to the national independence in the Republic of Korea, it is difficult to simply compare with the request for disclosure of the instant information in light of the purpose, subject and method of publication, the nature of the subject information, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant information should be disclosed without restriction to anyone.

D. There is no other assertion or proof as to the fact that the disclosure of the instant information significantly exceeds the benefit of the party’s privacy or freedom, etc. which is infringed upon by the disclosure of the information.

(4) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit (the Plaintiff’s assertion that, even if personal identification information is included in the instant information, the name and public part should be disclosed. However, in this case, insofar as the name of the recipient of the Order of Civil Merit falls under the most important personal identification information, the above assertion is difficult to accept).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Jong-dae

Judges Kim Dong-dong