The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

The part of the decision made by the Defendant to the Intervenor joining the Defendant on March 6, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim on this part is dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the decision of disclosure of information made on March 6, 2012 by the intervenor.

The Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Information of this case") acquired personnel management opinion on the Intervenor through ex officio investigation with respect to the case of unfair transfer remedy application between the Intervenor and the Plaintiff, 2009, 2428.

On October 28, 2011, the intervenor requested the defendant to disclose the instant information. On March 6, 2012, the defendant made a decision to disclose the instant information to the intervenor according to the ruling of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (No. 2011-25825) (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, Eul's entry of evidence Nos. 1, 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Information subject to non-disclosure

1) Plaintiff’s assertion

The instant information is a document prepared by the Plaintiff for personnel management to maintain its secrecy for the Plaintiff’s business activities, and if disclosed, it is highly likely to significantly impede the Plaintiff’s performance of personnel management or management. Therefore, pursuant to Article 9(1)5 and 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), the Defendant shall not disclose it to the intervenors. Accordingly, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

2) Criteria for determining whether to disclose information

In full view of the details and legislative intent of Article 3, the main sentence of Article 9(1) and proviso, Article 9(1)7, and Article 21(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, public institutions shall disclose information they hold and manage: Provided, That if the relevant information is disclosed due to matters in the personnel management process, decision-making process, or internal review process, etc., and there are reasonable grounds to believe that it significantly impedes fair performance of duties or research and development, or if disclosed, it is deemed that the disclosure of information is likely to seriously harm legitimate interests of corporations, organizations, or individuals (hereinafter referred to as "corporation, etc."), it may choose not to disclose the information; and a third party related to the information requested to be disclosed may request the relevant public institution not to disclose the information. In addition, if the public institution refuses to disclose the information on the grounds under the proviso of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, it shall specifically verify and examine the contents of the information subject to disclosure and verify which part conflicts with the legal interests or fundamental rights of the people, and it shall be determined by comparing and proving the interests of the people, including 20.

3) Determination

Considering that Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and this court’s reading of the information of this case to non-disclosure with the overall purport of the pleadings, the information of this case is acknowledged as dismissing the Intervenor’s request for remedy in the case of unfair transfer remedy application case between the intervenor and the plaintiff in Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (2009bubly 2428).

In light of the above facts, the process of acquiring the information of this case by the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, the original written opinion on personnel management based on the information of this case is not subject to the intervenor's request for disclosure of information, and the information of this case is disclosed to the public, and there is no ground to recognize that the plaintiff is bound to disclose all his/her written opinion on personnel management in response to the worker's request for disclosure. In addition, the first instance court and the appellate court are hard to recognize that disclosing all of the information of this case without any indication of the author's position or name or signature, etc., which makes it difficult to recognize that the disclosure of all of the information of this case without any indication of the author's position or name or signature, etc.,

B. Abuse of the right to information disclosure

1) Plaintiff’s assertion

Although the Intervenor has already retained the instant information, the Intervenor’s filing a claim for damages against the Plaintiff and claiming disclosure of the instant information for the purpose of use as evidence of the claim for damages against the Plaintiff constitutes abuse of rights as it solely aims at bullying of the Plaintiff.

2) Even if the applicant for information disclosure had already access to the pertinent information through another channel, such access possibility is merely a de facto possibility, and it does not guarantee the right to claim information disclosure, which is a specific right (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du8733, Jul. 13, 2007). In addition, barring any special circumstance, such as where the applicant for information disclosure seeks information disclosure for the purpose of inducing the other party, it cannot be deemed that the claim for information disclosure is contrary to the good faith principle or constitutes abuse of rights (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du2783, Aug. 24, 2006).

In light of the facts and circumstances acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion alone cannot be deemed to have claimed disclosure of the instant information solely for the purpose of coercing the Plaintiff, and it cannot be acknowledged even if all the evidence submitted by the first instance court and the appellate court are gathered. Thus, the Intervenor’s claim for disclosure of the instant information cannot be deemed to be contrary to the good faith principle or constitutes abuse of rights. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since the disposition of this case is lawful, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is not justifiable on the grounds that part of the conclusion is not justifiable. Thus, the defendant's appeal is accepted as it is reasonable, and it is modified as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance No. 1. The plaintiff'

Judges Noh Jeong-il

Judges Jeong Jae-ok