2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the litigation costs, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

A. On August 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for disclosure of the list of inmates in Daejeon Prison (hereinafter “instant information”) between ① December 12, 1950 to January 1, 1951, ② the identification number of inmates in Daejeon Prison (hereinafter “instant information”), ③ the details of inmates in Daejeon Prison (Management Number B) on January 14, 1951, and “the time when the Plaintiff speaks individual information” (hereinafter “instant information”).

B. On August 24, 2012, based on Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), the Defendant rendered a partial decision to disclose the contents of the instant information, including the name of the recipient, after eliminating all the personal information of the recipient (see evidence 3 of A; hereinafter “the remaining decision to disclose the information”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 13, Eul evidence 5 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After the outbreak of the Korean War, the defendant, as well as the plaintiff's dynamic C (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), forced a large number of residents of Seoul Metropolitan City to cover a brutous life with the suppression of being a person suspected of having committed a harsh act, such as adviser, etc. Accordingly, the defendant died at the same time. Nevertheless, the defendant did not formally notify the plaintiff and his bereaved family members including the plaintiff of the above death until 60 years thereafter, and did not endeavor to find any harm. Accordingly, the bereaved family members including the plaintiff did not confirm the death of the above victims, and therefore, the plaintiff and their bereaved family members without confirming the death of the victims. Accordingly, the plaintiff, on behalf of the State, notified the bereaved family members of the above fact, and notified the victims of the fact, and took the honor of the victims, and made the above order as the bereaved family members, thereby doing so, the defendant's disposition of refusing the request for the disclosure of the information of this case was unlawful in order to carry out the business of this case.

B. Relevant legislation

Attached Form 2 shall be as listed in attached Table 2.

C. Facts of recognition

1) As the Korean War was launched on June 25, 1950, the sentence of death was possible for all criminal acts on the 28th day of the same month, the public trial was held within 20 days after the prosecution on the degree of the trial, and the judgment was completed within 40 days after the prosecution, and the judgment was rendered once by a single judge, and the Presidential Emergency Order No. 1, a Presidential Emergency Order No. 1, stating that evidence may be omitted, was issued.

2) After the Uniform of Seoul on September 28, 1950, soldiers suspected of serving in the National People's Office were arrested in Daejeon District Office in accordance with the above order of special measures. Despite the fact that about 75% of the building was destroyed due to the heavy shooting at the time of the occupation of the People's Forces, inmates with more than 1,000 inmates were arrested in prison and sick due to the shortage of food, medicine, etc. as well as accommodation facilities, and the situation has deteriorated as inmates were reduced in Seoul around December of the same year.

3) From January 13, 1951, 1951, the time of retirement from the Daejeon District Court, inmates of the Daejeon District Office were transferred to Busan District Office, and many prisoners transferred were left thirst and maler, and died. In addition, on the 17th day of the same month immediately before the death from Daejeon District, the 11th military police officer of the Daejeon District Court was arrested at the 166th military police officer, who was sentenced to death penalty at the Sejong District Court of Law, and was arrested at the 3th day of the same month before the retirement from Daejeon, and executed the death penalty within Daejeon District by mobilization of 10 military police officers and 100 police officers who were detained at the Daejeon District Court of Law and executed the death penalty. At that time, the Daejeon District Court of Law cannot move back to the 10th and 4th time of retirement, and thus, the death penalty or imprisonment for life was killed within harmful people."

4) As seen above, as the handling of the subordinate to the military after the Uniform of Seoul on September 28, 1950 became important, not only Daejeon and Chungcheongnam area, but also those suspected of being transferred to the Daejeon District Office in Seoul in the process of the investigation but also died due to the symptoms after the investigation, but also the chemical vehicles moving to the Busan District Office, and the war vehicles moving to the Busan District Office (hereinafter referred to as the "sacrificing of the Daejeon District Unclaimed Prisoners") neglected to the poor accommodation of the Busan District Office (hereinafter referred to as the "sacrific of the Daejeon District Unclaimed Prisoners").

5) The Plaintiff asserted that the deceased died in a case of sacrifice of a prisoner in the Daejeon Prison, and applied for an inspection of the truth of the deceased’s death to the Committee for the Settlement of History for Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “The Committee for the Settlement of History”) pursuant to Article 19 of the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for Truth and Reconciliation.

6) From January 2006 to November 2, 2006, the past History Settlement Board received an application for ascertaining the truth of the sacrifice case of prisoners in the Daejeon or Chungcheong area, conducted an investigation by the applicant, a witness investigation, data investigation, etc., and conducted an investigation by seven persons including the deceased on June 22, 2010, died as an adviser and a cruel act, and one person was killed within the mountain as of June 22, 201, and notified the Plaintiff of this fact on July 9 of the same year. Among them, the content of the deceased is as follows.

After September 28, 1951, the deceased was killed on January 4, 1951 due to an advisory post that was taken during the investigation process after he was discharged to the National Defense Team, and was committed in Seodaemun-gu Office. The deceased was subject to harsh acts, such as adviser, in the process of having been conducted and being investigated. When the deceased was at the Seodaemun-gu Office, family members had a visit, and at the time, the deceased did not have a very rough health due to harsh acts, such as adviser, etc.

7) The Committee on the Settlement of History recognized the State’s responsibility in the determination of ascertaining the truth, and recommended that the State be seriously killed for victims and their bereaved families, support the memorial projects for victims, correct the family relation register entered in the family register when their bereaved families want, and enforce the education of human rights, such as mandatory education of domestic law and relevant international law, which contain matters concerning the protection of civilians in the war against military police officers and public officials.

8) Among the instant information, the list of inmates in the Daejeon Prison between 1950 and 1951 is 7 iron (management number D-E) 676 pages. Within that period, the name of a crime including personal identification information, such as the number, name, address, and permanent domicile of the prisoner, the name of a criminal defendant and the term of punishment are included, and the list of inmates on January 14, 1951 constitutes the management number B in the above list of inmates. In addition, the identification number of the inmates in the Daejeon Prison is a total of 54 files (management number F-G) 849 pages, and the personal personal identification card that includes personal identification information, such as the personal identification number, name, address, and permanent domicile of the prisoner.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4, 5, 7 through 11, Gap evidence 14-1, 2, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 9-1 through 7, Eul evidence 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 7(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that one of the information subject to non-disclosure refers to "personal identification information that can identify a specific person by name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information (hereinafter referred to as "personal identification information")." Article 7(1)6 of the same Act provides that "information prepared or acquired by a public institution is excluded from "information that is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the protection of rights of individuals." Here, whether disclosure constitutes "information that is deemed necessary for the public interest" should be determined on an individual basis by comparing and comparing public interests, such as the protection of privacy, etc. of individuals protected by non-disclosure, the guarantee of citizens' right to know, the guarantee of citizens' participation in government affairs, and securing transparency in government affairs, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8302, Aug. 20, 2004).

2) Based on the above legal principles, the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure, which contains the name of the crime, type of punishment, and period of punishment, including personal identification information, such as the convicted prisoner’s number, name, address, permanent domicile, etc., which was confined to the Daejeon District Court on the basis of a specific period or date. The instant information is a personal personal personal identification card stating the name of each prisoner, the execution direction, the inspection slip, and the impression characteristics. If disclosed, such information includes not only the matters by which the identity of the convicted prisoner can be identified, but also the name of the relevant crime, the type of punishment, the term of punishment, and personal information, and if disclosed, it constitutes information that could infringe on the confidentiality or freedom of personal life of the convicted prisoner or his/her bereaved family members.

However, in addition to the purport of oral argument as to the above facts, ① more than 1,80 inmates in the Daejeon District without due process can be evaluated as a historical case beyond each of the bereaved families of the victims due to murder, cruel acts, etc. committed by military personnel and police without due process. Accordingly, according to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, the Committee recognized the State's responsibility for the cases of sacrifice, etc. of the Daejeon District Unconvicted Prisoners in the above truth list, and provided the State with assistance to the victims and their bereaved families, and recorded a family relation register in the case of their bereaved family members, and it is reasonable to consider that it is difficult to secure the victim's privacy as materials to protect the victim's privacy. ② The plaintiff, as the bereaved family members of the Daejeon District in the scope of the right to know as well as the deceased's family members who have sacrificeed in the Daejeon District without due process, ③ The remaining information is not disclosed to the public within the scope of the right to know of the victim, ③ The name and the remaining information of the victim, including the information of this case.

3) Meanwhile, in addition to the instant information, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that “in addition to the index of criminal case in Seoul District Prosecutors’ Office in October 1950, the information, such as the Seoul Seodaemun-type prison, the convict list, and the list of the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office, should be disclosed.” However, the said information is not the subject of the instant disposition as well as the initial claim for the disclosure of information, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-ho

Judges Hong-man, Pung-man, and whose name or seal is impossible.

The presiding judge

Judges

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.