[2] The case holding that the information on external production details, production details, and amount of the Korean Broadcasting System does not constitute “information on business secrets of corporations, etc.” subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[3] Criteria to determine whether information related to a collegiate institution, such as the minutes of the board of directors, constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[4] The case holding that the disclosure of the minutes of the board of directors to the Korean Broadcasting System in the form of delivery of copies of the three-year-year-old minutes constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that disclosure of the minutes of the board of directors to the Korean Broadcasting System in the form of delivery of copies of the three-year-year-old minutes would substantially impede the fair performance of its duties, on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the Korean Broadcasting System already allowed access to the minutes of the board of directors

[2] The case holding that the information on external production details and amount of the Korean Broadcasting System’s external production content does not constitute “information on business secrets of corporations, etc.” subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)7 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[3] Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act provides that "any information in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review, etc., which, if disclosed, may seriously interfere with the fair performance of duties or research and development." In light of the regulatory form, as well as any information in the process of decision-making or internal review, which is equivalent to the general administrative management information that, if disclosed, has considerable reasons to believe that the information would seriously interfere with the fair performance of duties." However, in light of the principles of information disclosure stipulated under Article 3 of the same Act, it cannot be established that the information related to the collegiate institution should not be disclosed at all, and if there is no provision that the so-called collegiate institution should not disclose the information, such as the minutes of the board of directors' meeting, the general administrative operation information should be applied by analogical interpretation of the provisions concerning the information subject to disclosure. Here, the information should be determined by comprehensively considering the legislative purport of "information-related public institution" as an information subject to disclosure.

[4] The case holding that the disclosure of the minutes of the board of directors to the Korean Broadcasting System in the form of delivery of copies of the three-year-year-old minutes constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that disclosure of the minutes of the board of directors to the Korean Broadcasting System in the form of delivery of copies of the three-year-year-old minutes would substantially impede the fair performance of its duties, on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the Korean Broadcasting System already allowed access to and perusal of the minutes of the board

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 70% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 30% is borne by the Defendant.

1. Detailed details of the cost of production in the year 2003, 2004, and 2005;

2. The details of external production in 2003, 2004, and 205 (the external production place, details of production, and amount).

3. Minutes of the board of directors, 203, 2004, and 205;

A. The Plaintiff is an unincorporated association established for the purpose of “a public broadcast to satisfy citizens’ right to know and contribute to the formation of public opinion with a democratic citizen’s participation by conducting fair reports on the basis of independence and diversity and performing the role of a universal public opinion.”

B. On May 16, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of information, including the information stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “each of the instant information”), as a copy and output. On June 8, 2006, the Defendant decided to disclose some of the information, and issued a non-disclosure decision on each of the instant information for the following reasons.

(1) Detailed details of production cost in 2003, 2004, and 2005: It is recognized that there is no information that the defendant possesses or manages, or that there is a risk of considerable harm to the legitimate interests of corporations, etc. if disclosed, on matters concerning management and trade secrets.

(2) External production details in 2003, 2004, and 2005 (the external production details, production details, and amount): It is recognized that there is no information that the Defendant possesses or manages, or that there is a risk of considerable harm to the legitimate interests of corporations, etc. if disclosed, on matters concerning business and trade secrets.

(3) Minutes of the board of directors in 2003, 2004, and 2005: there is a risk of undermining a certain individual’s personality or privacy, and the minutes of the review process are disclosed to the public, thereby impairing the free atmosphere of review and hindering the securing of fairness. However, it is possible to visit and peruse the necessary minutes by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Among the information of this case, the detailed details of production cost and external production details of each of the information of this case constitutes information that the defendant naturally retains and manages, and each of the information of this case is not subject to non-disclosure under the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”). Therefore, the defendant is obligated to disclose each of the information of this case.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) The details of the production cost of each class is not information that the Defendant retains and manages. In other words, the Defendant only prepares and manages the production cost of each class of program, but also specifies the method of classifying the class, and it is not easy to distinguish the personnel cost and the cost of using all kinds of equipment by group of program.

(B) Externally produced details are not information owned and managed by the Defendant. In other words, the Defendant only prepares and manages data on the hours of external production programs.

In addition, in the case of external production, bidding is conducted against the external producer. If the unit price of production is disclosed, it interferes with appropriate and reasonable price formation through autonomous competition of the producer, thereby impairing the defendant's legitimate interest due to concerns over price collusion. This constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(C) The minutes of the board of directors are likely to impair the reputation of the relevant director due to the publication of the statements premised on the non-disclosure, and the minutes of the review process are disclosed to the public, thereby hindering the securing of fairness by impairing the free atmosphere of review if each member’s expression of intent is disclosed to the public. In addition, the minutes of the board of directors constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act. Furthermore, even though the Defendant allowed the Defendant to visit and peruse the necessary minutes, the Defendant’s request for the disclosure of all the minutes of the board of directors for three years constitutes abuse of

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) Regarding the detailed details of the cost of production by elderly

Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Information Disclosure Act defines “information” as “matters recorded in documents, drawings, photographs, films, tapes, slidess, and other media corresponding thereto that a public institution prepares or acquires and manages in the course of performing its duties.” Thus, the information subject to a request for disclosure is limited to where a public institution prepares or acquires in the course of performing its duties and manages the relevant information. Therefore, even if it is not necessary to prove that the applicant for the request for disclosure of information presents the relevant information to the extent that it can be identified and that the public institution manages the relevant information by direct evidence in a lawsuit against the rejection disposition, the applicant for the request for disclosure of information must prove that there is a substantial probability that the relevant information exists and the public institution manages it.

However, with respect to the detailed contents, it is difficult to see that the so-called type classification method has been specified, and there is no evidence to prove that the substance of the above information exists and the defendant is highly probable to manage it, and rather, considering all the circumstances, such as the defendant's character, operating method, and size, it is difficult to deem that the above information substance exists.

Therefore, the defendant's non-disclosure decision on this part is legitimate.

(2) As to the external production details (the external origin, production details, and amount)

(A) Whether the information is specified and exists

The plaintiff claims disclosure of information on external production details, such as external origin, production details, and amount, and it is reasonable to deem that the content of the requested information is specified. The defendant also holds information on external origin and production details, and it is clear in light of the empirical rule that information is retained in the form of contract and receipt. Thus, the defendant's assertion on this part is rejected.

(B) Whether it constitutes a non-disclosure subject under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act

Even if the defendant's external production method is a bidding among the external producers, there is no ground to believe that the defendant's legitimate interest is substantially infringed upon due to price collusion among the external producers if the existing production amount is disclosed. However, as the defendant is the person who is the defendant, at least 24% in the case of TV No. 1, and at least 40% in the case of TV No. 2, in the case of TV No. 2, it is highly necessary to disclose the execution evidence even in order to ensure the legality and efficiency of the execution by blocking the possibility of arbitrary and defensive budget execution in advance and guaranteeing the surveillance of the citizens. In light of these circumstances, the above information contains the information on business secrets of corporations, etc., and it cannot be viewed as a non-disclosure object under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

(C) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant's non-disclosure decision on this part is illegal.

(3) As to the minutes of the board of directors

(A) Criteria for determination

Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that “Any information in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review, etc., which, if disclosed, has considerable reasons to believe that the fair performance of duties or substantial impediment to research and development is caused to the disclosure of such information.” In light of the regulatory form, the information not only the information in the process of decision-making or internal review but also the general administrative operational information equivalent thereto, which, if disclosed, has considerable reasons to be deemed to significantly obstruct the fair performance of the relevant duties, shall be deemed to constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Act: Provided, That in light of the principles of information disclosure under Article 3 of the Information Disclosure Act, the logic that the information related to the collegiate institution should not be disclosed should not be established, and if there is no provision that the information related to the so-called collegiate institution should not be disclosed, such as the minutes of the defendant’s board of directors, it should not be applied by analogical interpretation of general administrative information.

(B) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the reading and examination of Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 through 6-3 and of the court's non-disclosure of this part of the information on disclosure claims (Minutes of the board of directors).

① A BC broadcasting station and Japan NHK broadcasting station are disclosing the minutes of the board of directors.

② The Defendant’s minutes of the board of directors in 2003, 2004, 2005 contain not only the title of the agenda, the date and place of the meeting of the committee, the attendance of the directors, the detailed questions and answers to the contents of each director’s agenda, the details of discussions among the directors and the conclusion of the decision of the committee, but also the director’s opinions, management and business difficulties on the agenda to be decided in the future. In the end, the signature of the chairman, standing members, and participating employees is written.

(C) the board:

In light of the responsibility of public broadcasting and the role of society, legislation cases in other countries, etc., the minutes of the board of directors cannot be completely closed to the general public solely on the ground that the fair and efficient operation of the board of directors can be hindered in the future. However, as shown in the above recognition facts, the minutes of the board of directors contain not only the contents of the board of directors' decisions on various pending issues, but also the free and active expression of opinion up to the final decision making by the board of directors. As such, it is reasonable to see that some of the speaking on the premise that such non-disclosure is likely to cause social conflicts or defamation of directors, etc.

Considering the above circumstances, the issue of whether the minutes of the board of directors should be disclosed to the general public can only be determined by the defendant himself/herself after a serious examination of the contents of the minutes. Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that the "inspection" along with the "issuance of copies," etc. shall also be made public, so long as the defendant has already allowed access to and perusal of the minutes of each board of directors, it is difficult to view that he/she refused disclosure itself as long as it is already allowed. Thus, the disclosure of the minutes of the board of directors for three years, such as the plaintiff's request, in the form of a copy of the minutes of the board of directors, constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act.

Therefore, the defendant's non-disclosure decision on this part is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the part of the defendant's disposition of this case pertaining to non-disclosure decision on the records of external production in 2003, 2004, and 2005 (the records of production, and amount) is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is justified, and it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Young-young (Presiding Judge)