[2] Whether information, other than information on the bank account number of corporations, etc., among information on local governments' evidence of execution of business promotion expenses, constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (negative)

[2] Information about a specific corporation, organization, or individual (hereinafter referred to as "corporation, etc.") shall be non-disclosure information only if it contains business secrets, which is likely to seriously harm legitimate interests of the corporation, etc. if disclosed. If the information on the bank account number of the corporation, etc. is disclosed in combination with the name of the corporation, etc., the business status of the corporation, etc. may be threatened if abused, and thus, the information on the bank account number of the corporation, etc. among the information, including basic data to determine the legality and efficiency of the execution of business operating operating expenses of the local government, the information on the business operating expenses of the corporation, etc., included in the execution evidence of the business operating expenses of the corporation, etc., constitutes non-disclosure information under Article 7 (1) 7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act. However, since other information contains business secrets or know-hows of the corporation, it shall not be deemed information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 7 of the same Act.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the litigation shall be ten minutes, one of which shall be borne by the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the remainder by the defendants.

The defendant's disposition of non-disclosure of information recorded in the Schedule No. 1 of July 3, 200 against the designated parties listed in the Schedule No. 1 of July 3, 200 (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.") is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is revoked and the claim of the Plaintiff, etc. corresponding to the revocation is dismissed.

2. Parts to be dried;

C. Judgment on the merits

(1) Whether Article 7(1)6 and 7(1)7 of the Act is applicable

(A) The purport of Article 7(1)6 and 7(1)7 of the Act stipulating the information on an individual or a corporation as a non-disclosure subject matter is to prevent infringement of legal interests of a third party that may arise from the disclosure of information through the protection of an individual’s privacy, the protection of trade secrets, and the guarantee of information control rights on an individual or a corporation.

(b)In full view of the aforementioned evidence and evidence No. 4 and evidence No. 5, the business promotion expenses of this case are classified as institution operation expenses and special activity expenses (one year since 199), which refer to institution operation expenses and special activity expenses (one year since 199), which refer to large-scale policy implementation expenses, major investment projects, and all expenses for the smooth implementation of major events, which are executed by local governments (one year since 1999). The budget is established in accordance with the basic guidelines for local government budget formation. According to the above guidelines, the expenses are not special activity expenses in case of 198, cash payment or non-deposit in accordance with the above purposes, and are attached to receipts that are reasonable for them. In principle, business promotion expenses are not required for the use of credit cards in case of expenditure of this case, and the expenses are not covered by the Act on the Establishment of Local Government Budget, and the expenses are not covered by the Act on the Establishment of Local Government's Budget, and there are no need for public enforcement and re-operation within the scope of 30% of the amount of cash spending.

However, there are cases where the personal information of the participant or recipient of the business promotion expenses of this case is stated in the process of executing the official budget. Such matters are private information about the individual at the same time about the execution of the official budget, and private information about the private person is also worthy of protection. However, as seen above, the business promotion expenses of this case are restricted to the official business and its execution affairs cannot be seen as confidential. Thus, the value of the information related to the individual is not higher than that of the person who participated in the process of executing the official business or who received the money in accordance with the budget execution. It is difficult to view it as private information, and such disclosure does not seem to have a high level of disadvantage to the individual. Rather, in light of the purpose and purpose of the system to enhance transparency and accountability of the administrative procedures of this case as to the execution of the business promotion expenses of this case, the disclosure of information including the name of the recipient or recipient of the official business promotion expenses of this case is much more than that of the person who participated in the public information disclosure to the public or more than that of the public information disclosure of this case.

However, if the account number of financial institutions, such as resident registration numbers or banks, (hereinafter referred to as "bank account number") is used as basic data on the judgment of the same person in electronic commerce, etc. in combination with the name of the individual and is disclosed without any restriction, it may cause serious harm to the individual's property and credit in the private life or social life. Thus, the information on the resident registration number and bank account number among the information of this case constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 6 of the Act.

(c)In addition, information about a specific corporation, organization or individual (hereinafter referred to as "corporation, etc.") shall be non-disclosure only when it is recognized that the disclosure is considerably detrimental to legitimate interests of the corporation, etc., if disclosed. If the information on the bank account number of the corporation, etc. is made public in combination with the name of the corporation, etc., the business status of the corporation, etc. may be threatened if abused. Thus, the information on the bank account number of the corporation, etc. among the information in this case shall be subject to non-disclosure as provided in Article 7, paragraph 1, subparagraph 7 of the Act. However, since it contains matters concerning business secrets and know-hows of the corporation, etc., such other information shall not be subject to non-disclosure, such as business status of the corporation, etc. or degradation of social evaluation of the corporation, etc., and on the contrary, it shall not be subject to non-disclosure as it prevents in advance the possibility of budget execution and supervision of the citizens beyond its original purpose, thereby ensuring the law and efficiency of enforcement.

(2) Whether it falls under Article 8(2) of the Act

Although the Defendant made it possible for reporters, designated parties B, etc. to peruse the copies of various documentary evidence of the instant information, such reasons alone cannot be deemed to constitute “matters widely known” under Article 8(2) of the Act. In full view of the provisions of Articles 5 and 8(2) of the Act, and Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, where the public institution which received a request from the claimant for the disclosure of information receives a request from the claimant by means of a copy or a duplicate, the public institution which received the request for the disclosure of information is obligated to disclose the information as requested by the claimant, unless there are special circumstances under Article 8(2) of the Act. Although the Defendant is in possession and manager of the instant information, the amount of individual information of the institution and the organization that keeps the relevant information physically is scattered, and it is difficult to conclude that the amount of information requested by other individuals or organizations will be continuously and repeatedly requested for the issuance of copies of the relevant information, as alleged by the Defendant, and it is difficult to conclude that the disclosure request constitutes an excessive non-disclosure of information and its own responsibility.

In addition, Article 8 (2) of the Act provides only the grounds for restricting the delivery of copies or reproductions of the information on the claim for information disclosure, so the information disclosure itself cannot be denied solely on the grounds of the defendant's assertion, such as the lack of the amount of the information in this case.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the information of this case, excluding the information on the resident registration number of an individual and the information on the account number of a financial institution, such as a corporation, organization, and individual bank, does not fall under the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7(1)6 and 7 of the Act, and the information of this case does not fall under the grounds for restriction under Article 8(2) of the Act. Thus, the part where the information of this case and the information on the account number of a financial institution, such as a corporation, organization, and individual bank, among the dispositions of this case, are legitimate, and the remaining part excluding this

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiff et al. shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as there is no ground, and the judgment of the court below is partially different from this conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)