A. The Plaintiff applied for an agricultural research institute (art. 1) for the first appointment of local public officials of Jeollabuk-do in 2007, which was effective May 26, 2007, and was subject to a disposition of failure to pass the appointment of a local public official of the 1st appointment examination institute (hereinafter referred to as "the subject of this case") by acquiring 35 points from the original crop crop spawn (hereinafter referred to as "the subject of this case"). On June 18, 2007, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose "the test site of this case (the paragraph 20) and its answers and answers written by the Plaintiff among the agricultural research institute (hereinafter referred to as "the information disclosure claim of this case") of the first appointment examination for local public officials of the 2007, Jeollabuk-do in 2007.

B. On June 20, 2007, the defendant made a decision to disclose only the plaintiff's answer and answer to the plaintiff's answer and answer, and refuse to disclose the test and answer to the decision (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") on the ground that the disclosure of the test issue under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") may hinder the fair performance of the test.

C. On June 22, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the Defendant, and changed the subject to disclosure to the 13 question out of the 20 test paper and the 10 answer paper of this case. However, the Plaintiff decided to dismiss the subject for the same reason as the above paragraph on July 5, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff filed a claim for the disclosure of this case to verify whether there is an error in the issue and answer of the subject of this case, not the purpose of impairing the defendant's fair test management affairs, and the plaintiff's claim for the disclosure of this case is unlawful as it violates Article 9 of the Act as well as infringes citizens' right to know, right to pursue happiness, etc., even if all the questions of this case are disclosed, it is difficult to see that the fair performance or research and development of the test affairs

In this regard, the defendant argues that the issue of the subject of this case is: (1) the issue of the subject of this case is being drawn up in a problem bank form, and the issue of this case is being re-established or re-established through several revisions and supplementations after the next examination; (2) when the issue of this case is disclosed, the re-explosion of the problem identical with or similar to the re-explosion due to the side effects of disclosure of the examination information is virtually impossible, and simple cancer-oriented test c) as the problem of this case can be seen from the various tests implemented in the country when the problem of this case is open to the public, it is difficult to normally proceed with the public bond test because it is difficult to keep the issue and the time for the correct answer. (3) In the case of other local governments, the method of preparing the problem bank form is selected and the examination problem is

(b) Related statutes;

Article 1 (Purpose) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (Purpose) The purpose of this Act is to guarantee citizens' right to know and secure citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state affairs by prescribing matters necessary for the citizens' request for disclosure of information held and managed by public institutions and the duty of public institutions to disclose information.

Article 3 (Principles of Disclosure of Information) Any information held and managed by public institutions shall be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Article 5 (Claimant for Information Disclosure)

(1) All citizens shall have the right to request the disclosure of information.

(2) As to the request for disclosure of information by foreigners, the Presidential Decree.

Article 9 (Information Subject to Non-Disclosure)

(1) Information held and managed by public institutions shall be subject to disclosure: Provided, That the following information may not be disclosed:

5. Information in the process of personnel management decision-making or internal review of the development of technology for tendering contracts, etc. for audit, supervision, inspection, testing, and regulation, which has reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure may interfere with the fair performance of duties or research and development;

(2) Where the information falling under any subparagraph of paragraph (1) is no longer necessary to be kept confidential due to the lapse of a period, a public institution shall make the relevant information open to the public.

(1) Article 9(1)5 of the Act provides that information pertaining to testing (hereinafter referred to as "testing information") which may seriously obstruct the fair performance of duties or research and development may not be disclosed if disclosed. Here, whether disclosure as testing information substantially interferes with the fair performance of duties or the fair performance of research and development of testing information may not be disclosed or not, shall be determined individually by taking into account the legislative intent of the Information Disclosure Act and the testing information disclosure Act, the nature and contents of the relevant testing and evaluation act, the increase of duties due to disclosure, and the ripple effect due to disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du6114, Mar. 14, 2003).

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the appointment examination for senior citizens of the Jeollabuk-do local public officials of agriculture research institute was made on an irregular basis at the request of the Mayor/Do governor. The number of persons selected three times in the last 10 years, 197 (1), 2004 (2), and 207 (1) was only four. The subject of the instant case is the selected subject of the appointment examination for senior citizens of the Jeollabuk-do agricultural research institute of Jeollabuk-do (However, the applicant for the instant examination appears to be the essential subject because the defendant selected all the subject of the instant case by the defendant, and the practical applicant does not have any room for selecting the subject of the instant examination). The number of claims in the custody of the Bank of Jeollabuk-do for the subject of this case is about 40, because this is not existing, and the bank of this case was submitted from the name of the defendant around April 207 to keep the above issues in the bank of this case.

Pursuant to the adoption of 10 languages, excluding the same and similar problems, excluding the same and similar problems, the number of applicants for the agricultural research staff of the public officials of Jeollabuk-do, and the number of applicants for the subject of this case can be recognized as 12 persons.

(3) The following circumstances recognized by the above facts are as follows: ① there are only 40 questions stored in the problem bank of this case, and it is difficult to view the method of preparing the above subjects as the problem bank type; ② Even if the method of the question bank is the problem bank type, it is possible to prepare various questions in various ways within the extent that the applicant can clearly recognize the purpose of preparing questions in accordance with the general level of the applicant in the case of preparing a multiple-choice type questions such as the subject of this case, and it is difficult to research and develop various problems by combining various items in the case of organizing such options; and also, even if the examination questions corresponding to the academic development are continuously developed and put into the problem into the problem bank, it is difficult to adopt a modified method of the problem bank type without preparing new questions; ③ in the case of the question of multiple-choice type questions as in this case, it is unlikely that the disclosure of the examination results in the examination and development of the examination of this case, and there is no possibility that the examination results in the examination and development of the information of this case, and there is no possibility that the examination and development of information of this case may be disclosed.

(4) Therefore, the issue or question of the instant subject and its answer shall not be deemed information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Lee Young-ho

Judges Hwang Jin-hee