정보공개거부처분취소
1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting the disclosure of information against the Plaintiff on May 10, 2013 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for disclosure of “A notice of decision on the application for disclosure and partial disclosure (excluding attached Form 7, personal information) among all applications for disclosure of information received from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011” (hereinafter “instant information”).
B. On May 10, 2013, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff based on Article 9(1)6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “former Information Disclosure Act”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. In principle, the information held and managed by the Plaintiff’s alleged public institution is subject to disclosure, and even if there are information about the privacy of an individual among the instant information, the Defendant should delete the information about the privacy of an individual from among the instant information pursuant to Article 14 of the former Information Disclosure Act and disclose the remainder to the public.
Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.
B. Even if personal information is excluded from the Defendant’s notice of decision on the Defendant’s claim for disclosure of information, when examining the title and content, it constitutes information that could infringe on the individual’s privacy or freedom, if disclosed, because the person investigated by the investigative agency or the details related to the investigation are known. It is not necessary to disclose information regarding public interest
On the other hand, on December 3, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose “the details of calculation of each fee for the request for disclosure or partial disclosure of the application received from January 1, 2011 to the present,” and did not receive the disclosure document because the Defendant did not pay the fee of KRW 1,420, even though the Defendant decided to disclose.
In addition, the plaintiff on December 20, 2012.