A. The defendant's refusal to disclose information on August 28, 2006 to the plaintiff is revoked in relation to the corporation's account number, individual resident registration number, and account number other than the other part.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be four minutes, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff. The remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

A disposition rejecting information disclosure concerning information shall be revoked (the plaintiff shall be revoked in the trial on the attached Table 16, 17.

The claim has been reduced by withdrawing the action on the part of the paragraph.

A. The Plaintiff, as an teacher of Daegu Middle School (hereinafter referred to as “BUBL”), was a member for teachers of the same school operating committee, on August 18, 2006, filed a request for the disclosure of information by means of a copy or output (mail) as to each information listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which is a document pertaining to the school accounting expenditure of a middle school.

B. On August 28, 2006, the defendant, among the information listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 through 15 and 22, disclosed the information, including personal information identifying a specific person with respect to the information set forth in paragraph 1, 18, 19, and 20, and refusal to disclose the information pursuant to Article 9 (1) 6 and 7 of the Public Institutions Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Institutions Disclosure Act") on the ground that the excessive amount of the information requested for disclosure could seriously interfere with the normal performance of duties. In the case of paragraph 21, the defendant refused to disclose the information pursuant to Article 9 (1) 6 and 7 of the same Act on the grounds that the information set forth in the separate sheet No. 16, 17, and 205 (in the case of paragraph 21, 204 and 2005) contains personal information identifying a specific person.

C. On November 10, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the initial disposition. On January 4, 2007, an administrative appeals commission of the Daegu Metropolitan City Office of Education (hereinafter “administrative appeals commission”) revoked the part concerning information in attached Table 18 through 21 of the initial disposition and rendered a ruling that the Plaintiff’s remaining claims for dismissal are dismissed, even though the information in attached Table 1 was disclosed, excluding the part by which a specific person can be identified.

D. Accordingly, on January 25, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the information of [Attachment 1] Nos. 1, 16, and 17 among the initial dispositions, and thereafter, the information of [Attachment 1] Nos. 16 and 17 was disclosed, and the Plaintiff refused to deliver a copy or output of the information of [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 (1) of [Attachment 1] among the initial dispositions (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The defendant's assertion (1)

The Defendant asserts that the instant disposition is lawful for the following reasons. (A) The instant information contains the name of the supplier, business registration number, representative director, address, and account number, and the document stating the instant information is not specified because its content is different from other expenditure documents, and it is difficult to view it as a specific information. If it is disclosed, it is highly likely that it would cause confusion to operating the relevant information due to the outcome of the transaction with the third party, and it is difficult to clearly distinguish the disclosed information from the disclosed information. Therefore, the instant information is not only likely to seriously infringe upon an individual’s property and privacy, but also may infringe upon the legitimate interest if disclosed, and it is not possible to separate the disclosed information from the disclosed information and the non-disclosure part. Thus, the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of the instant information is likely to interfere with the Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of the instant information from 206 to 406.26.

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

(A) Of the instant information, the information on a corporation, including the name of the corporation, the name of the place of business, and the business registration number, which are indicated in the disbursement resolution, does not constitute “information that may seriously harm legitimate interests of the corporation, etc., if disclosed,” and is not subject to non-disclosure. The Plaintiff does not request the personal information of a specific person, such as resident registration number, address, account number, etc., but may also be disclosed if copied and delivered. In relation to the partial disclosure under Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act, the instant information may be separated from the information available for disclosure. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting disclosure of the instant information is unlawful. (b) The Defendant’s disposition of refusing disclosure of the instant information is unlawful solely on the grounds that it merely prevents the volume of the instant information in light of the legislative intent of the Information Disclosure Act or causes interference with normal business performance due to such disclosure. The Plaintiff’s request for disclosure of the instant information to ensure transparency in the budget operation and enforcement of the school, as a school steering committee of B&L, and thus, did not request the Plaintiff to disclose or abuse of the instant information.

(b) Related statutes;

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

C. Determination

(1) Whether each of the information of this case is subject to non-disclosure (A) or not, Article 3 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "the information held and managed by a public institution shall be disclosed as prescribed by this Act." Article 5 (1) provides that "All citizens shall have the right to request disclosure of information." Meanwhile, Article 9 (1) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "any information which is likely to seriously undermine the protection of people's lives, bodies and property if disclosed to the public pursuant to subparagraph 3, and subparagraph 6 provides that "information which is deemed likely to seriously undermine the protection of people's lives, bodies, and property, such as names, resident registration numbers, etc. included in the relevant information, and information which is deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals if disclosed to the public."

In principle, the purpose of each of the above provisions is to guarantee citizens' right to know by allowing them to freely access information held and managed by public institutions, and to secure citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state administration. However, if a public institution freely discloses personal information of a third party possessed by an opportunity to perform its duties on the grounds of citizens' right to know, etc., it would result in invasion of privacy. Thus, Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "personal information that is likely to infringe upon individuals or corporations' privacy and legitimate interests," and "information on management and business of corporations, etc." as information subject to prohibition of disclosure: Provided, That it is reasonable to deem that such information is excluded from the subject of prohibition of disclosure in cases where it is deemed necessary for the public interest that leads to the necessity of protecting the privacy and business interests of the parties concerned, or for the protection of rights of individuals corresponding thereto.

Meanwhile, Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the information subject to non-disclosure and the information available to the public should be partially disclosed if the information requested is mixed. However, Article 14 of the Information Disclosure Act does not mean the case where the two parts are physically distinguishable, but it does not mean the case where the information is physically distinguishable, and it is possible to exclude or delete the technology, etc. related to the information subject to non-disclosure from the information in light of the method and procedure for disclosure of the information in question, and only the remaining part of the information can be disclosed, and it is worth disclosure with only the remaining part of the information (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12707, Dec. 9, 2004). (b) However, the information in this case contains the name, business registration number, representative director, address, and account number, etc. of the supplier as stated in the expenditure resolution, and there is no dispute between the parties, and the corporation's name, address, business registration number, etc. cannot be viewed as the information subject to non-disclosure or the remaining part of the information in this case.

(C) Accordingly, it is unlawful to refuse the disclosure of information on the part other than the bank account number or individual resident registration number or account number among the disposition of this case. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disclosure of the bank account number or individual resident registration number or account number among the disposition of this case also requests is without merit.

(2) In full view of the provisions of Article 2 subparag. 2, Articles 3, 5, and 10(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, Article 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (attached Form 1) of the same Act, where a person who requests the Information Disclosure selects a public institution by means of delivery of copies or printed materials, and requests the public institution to disclose the information, the public institution which received the request for Information Disclosure shall disclose the information according to the method of disclosure chosen by the applicant for Information Disclosure unless there are other grounds under the Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is reasonable to interpret that there is no discretion to choose the method of disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8302, Aug. 20, 200). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff requested the Information Disclosure by means of delivery of copies, it is unlawful for the Defendant to limit the method of disclosure to the Defendant’s right to request Information Disclosure, barring any special circumstances.

(B) As to whether the Plaintiff’s excessive volume of information requested to be disclosed could seriously interfere with the Defendant’s normal performance of duties, the method of disclosure of information can be restricted due to perusal. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 4, the statement No. 5-1 through No. 4, the statement No. 5-1, and the testimony of the witness at the court of first instance, and the witness at the court of first instance, the information of this case shall be collected from middle school in 2005, and a tax invoice stating the name, business registration number, address, account number, etc. of the other party is included. The amount is about 2,80, the number is about 14, the number of employees of the administrative office of the BB, including 60, the total number of 14, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, and 6, the Plaintiff’s internal employees of the administrative office of this case.

(C) Meanwhile, Article 13(2) of the Information Disclosure Act provides, “In cases where the excessive quantity of the information subject to disclosure is likely to seriously obstruct the normal performance of duties, public institutions may deliver copies of the information - copies of the information by dividing it for a certain period or in parallel with perusal.” Article 12(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides, “In cases where copies or reproductions of the information are distributed in installments for a certain period or in parallel with perusal pursuant to Article 13(2) of the Act, the public institutions shall first allow the applicant to peruse the information, and then deliver copies or reproductions within two months, and shall complete the delivery, unless there are special circumstances.” In other words, even if there is a large quantity of information, the copies or reproductions of the information can be delivered in parallel with the delivery of the information for a certain period of time or in parallel with the perusal, and the method of perusal alone, such as the instant disposition

(D) Nevertheless, the Defendant restricted the method of disclosure of the instant information to be perused, and refused to deliver copies and reproductions of the instant information. The aforementioned provisions are not acceptable, even if the pertinent facts are considered to include the workload of employees of middle school administrative office, the amount of the instant information, and the circumstances in which part of the instant information should be copied and copied, even if the said facts may be divided for a certain period, it does not constitute a ground for refusing to deliver copies and reproductions of the instant information. (e) Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the method of disclosure may be restricted by perusal, or that the copy and reproduction of the instant information shall not be delivered due to workloads cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition rejecting information disclosure on the remaining part of the disposition of this case, excluding the bank account number, the resident registration number and the account number of an individual, shall be revoked in an unlawful manner. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be accepted in part of the plaintiff's appeal and the decision of the court of first instance shall be modified as above.

Judges Kim Kim -

Judges Kim-type -

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.