[2] The case holding that in case where a local government requested disclosure of all documents, etc. concerning the details of subsidies granted by the local government to the high-speed railway station, among the information requested disclosure, the personal privacy interest protected by non-disclosure is more important than that of the public interest such as securing transparency in state administration, etc.

Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provides for “information pertaining to an individual, 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.” Article 9(1)6 of the same Act provides that “information prepared or acquired by a public institution and deemed necessary for the public interest or the relief of an individual’s rights” shall be excluded. However, whether disclosure constitutes “information that is deemed necessary for the public interest or the relief of an individual’s rights” should be determined carefully in accordance with specific matters by comparing and comparing the interests of an individual protected by non-disclosure such as the privacy of an individual and the relief of an individual’s rights, such as securing transparency in national administration or the relief of an individual’s rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6425, Mar. 11, 2003).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant's non-disclosure of the information of this case constitutes "information deemed necessary for public interest" under Article 9 (1) 6 (c) of the Act, among the information requested by the defendant for the purpose of verifying the details of subsidies executed by the Committee on the Aggravated Deducing of the Case (hereinafter "Inducing of the Case") since it is difficult to view it as necessary information even in light of the purpose and purpose of the request for disclosure of this case among the information of this case, and allowing disclosure of the above information is likely to excessively infringe upon the legitimate interests of individuals, such as privacy, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the disclosure of the information of this case is also without merit. The court below held that the part of the information of this case, among the information requested to be disclosed to the public for the purpose of verifying the contents of subsidies executed by the Committee on the Aducing of the Case (hereinafter "the Aducing of the Information of this case"), is more essential and essential, and that the scope of disclosure is not limited.

However, in light of the above legal principles and the records of this case, an individual's name among the information of this case is related to an individual's personal status, as in other information that the court below did not allow disclosure, and it is deemed that the disclosure of the information might infringe upon the individual's privacy, while the court below appears to have confirmed the use of the subsidy granted by the petitioner group in relation to the attraction of the dispatch quarter only with the disclosure of the remaining transaction details, etc. other than the individual's name, the court below's decision is more important than the public interest such as securing transparency in state administration.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the part of the disposition of this case which did not disclose an individual's name was illegal, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 6 of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit

Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding the name of an individual and a business operator is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)