정보공개거부처분취소
1. The Defendant’s refusal to disclose information to the Plaintiff on July 1, 2014 falls under the information listed in the attached Table 1.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. A filed an administrative appeal against the Plaintiff’s rejection of registration as a patent attorney with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (hereinafter “the Committee”) under the jurisdiction of the Defendant (hereinafter “the Committee”), against which the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the Defendant’s rejection of registration as a patent attorney (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014-08611; hereinafter “instant administrative appeal”), and on June 17, 2014, the hearing date of the instant administrative appeal was conducted. The Plaintiff B, C, D, E, and F
B. On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for disclosure of the minutes of the 22th committee meeting (hereinafter “instant minutes”) dated June 17, 2014 concerning the instant administrative appeal, but the Defendant rejected the disclosure of information on the grounds of Article 9(1)1 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and Article 41 of the Administrative Appeals Act on July 1, 2014.
(hereinafter “instant No. 1 Disposition”). (c)
In other words, on July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for disclosure of the oral contents of the instant minutes. However, on July 28, 2014, the Defendant rejected the disclosure of information on the grounds of the instant disposition and the statutes, such as the instant disposition, on the ground that “The minutes are documents stating the contents of a member’s remarks at a meeting of the Committee, and, on the grounds that, if disclosed, an organic mixture of questions and answers to the parties of the member’s parties, expression of opinions of the member, etc
(hereinafter “Disposition No. 2 of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. To make entries in attached Form 2 of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
3. Whether the first disposition in this case is lawful
A. Of the Plaintiff’s assertion minutes of this case, the statement of the members of the parties who attended the meeting of the administrative appeals commission of this case and the hearing statement of the parties to this case are not subject to non-disclosure and should be disclosed to the public.
B. As seen earlier, determination 1.