2. The defendant's refusal to disclose the work report among the information listed in the table Nos. 1 attached to the table Nos. 1 attached to the plaintiff No. 30 of October 30, 2007 against the plaintiff, and each disposition rejecting disclosure of the minutes of the disciplinary committee, excluding the part of the deliberation and resolution made by the chairperson and the members of the disciplinary committee as non-disclosure, shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence 2, 3, 7, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 6-1, and Eul evidence 6-2:

A. The plaintiff was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (special rape, etc.) in the Daejeon District Court's Written Branch Support, and was detained in the Jeonju Prison from October 26, 2006 to March 12, 2007, and is currently being detained in the Jeonju Prison through the Andong Prison and Busan Correctional Institution.

B. On October 25, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for disclosure of each information listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 4, and 5, on October 30, 2007, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision (hereinafter “instant non-disclosure decision”) on the grounds that the Defendant is not a document prepared and managed in the course of performing his duties, or that the content of the claim is unclear, as to the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1, No. 1, 2007, and the partial disclosure decision on the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, and the information listed in the separate sheet No. 3 was transferred to the Busan prison on the ground that the Plaintiff was possessed and managed by the Busan prison. The Plaintiff was served on November 1, 2007.

C. On November 1, 2007, the head of the Busan Correctional Institution rendered a non-disclosure decision on the grounds that the disclosure of the information under the No. 1 List No. 3 transferred by the defendant on November 1, 2007 could interfere with the free expression of opinion among the members and make it considerably difficult to perform his duties. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the head of the Busan Correctional Institution as the respondent to cancel the non-disclosure decision on the information under the No. 1 List No. 3 as of November 12, 2007, and the head of the Busan Correctional Institution made a second non-disclosure decision on November 13, 2007 on the grounds that the information under the No. 1 List No. 3 as of November 13, 2007 is not a document

D. On the other hand, on December 4, 2007, the plaintiff corrected the respondent in the administrative appeal to the head of the Busan Correctional Institution and the defendant in the Busan Regional Correctional Institution, and on December 5, 2007, the Daegu Regional Correctional Organization transferred the administrative appeal part against the defendant to the Gwangju Regional Correctional Organization.

E. On December 24, 2007, the Defendant again made a non-disclosure decision (hereinafter “instant Disposition 2”) on the grounds that disclosure of the information set forth in [Attachment 1 List 3] was likely to impose a burden on the disciplinary committee members on free decision-making and significantly impede the performance of their correctional duties.

F. On December 24, 2007, Daegu Regional Correctional Authority rejected the administrative appeal against Busan Regional Correctional Institution, and Gwangju Regional Correctional Authority dismissed the administrative appeal against the defendant on February 29, 2008.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. Since the Defendant asserts that the part of the claim for revocation of each disposition rejecting disclosure of the information in the annexed table 2, 4, and 5 against the annexed list Nos. 1 2, 4, and 5 is unlawful due to the lapse of the filing period, the Defendant shall file a lawsuit within 90 days from the date on which he/she became aware of the disposition, etc. As seen above, the Plaintiff was served with the decision of non-disclosure or partial disclosure of the information in the annexed table Nos. 1 2, 4, and 5 on Nov. 1, 2007, and the Plaintiff requested the revocation of disclosure of the information in the annexed list Nos. 1 2, 4, and 5 after the lapse of 90 days from Nov. 1, 207, 208, only sought the revocation of disclosure of the information in the annexed list No. 1, 2, and 5, and therefore, the part of the claim as to the information in the annexed list Nos. 1 2, 4, and 5 is unlawful by filing a lawsuit.

B. In light of the following, among the Disposition No. 1 of this case, the part on the claim for cancellation of the remaining information except for the work report, and the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its status, it is sufficient to prove that there is a considerable probability that the applicant for information disclosure will possess and manage the information to be disclosed. However, in a case where a public institution does not retain and manage such information, there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition rejecting the information disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12854, Jan. 28, 2005, etc.) unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12854, Jan. 28, 2005), and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has considerable probability of holding and managing the remaining

C. The defendant asserts that the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the work report among the Disposition No. 1 of this case is unlawful by the plaintiff's receipt of the non-disclosure decision on November 1, 2007 and filing a lawsuit on January 7, 2008. Thus, even if based on the defendant's assertion, it is apparent that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit within 90 days from the date on which the decision was served. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

D. The defendant asserts that the part of the claim for revocation of the work report and the Disposition No. 2 of this case among the Disposition No. 1 of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff already obtained the minutes of the disciplinary committee in accordance with the order of submission of documents by the full bench from the civil litigation (Seoul District Court 2007Na9418) and used them as evidentiary materials, and since the infringement of interest is terminated due to the circumstances after the disposition, there is no benefit of consultation.

In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information, even if a public institution submits the requested information to the court and let the claimant deliver or deliver a copy of the information through the court, and thereby disclosing the information to the claimant, such a bypassing method cannot be deemed to be an disclosure under the law unless the law is planned, and the benefit of the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the non-disclosure decision in question is not extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6583, Mar. 26, 2004). In light of these legal principles, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Part of the work report among the dispositions No. 1 of this case and whether the disposition No. 2 of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The information in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 3 is directly related to the plaintiff and should be disclosed because it is necessary for the relief of the plaintiff's rights.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

(1) As to the part on the work report in the Disposition No. 1 of this case

According to the result of this court’s reading of the work report among the information listed in the table Nos. 1 attached hereto, the above work report is unlawful since it does not seem to have any circumstances that make it considerably difficult to execute punishment and perform correctional duties when disclosed, or infringe another person’s honor or right.

(2) As to the second disposition of this case

According to the evidence No. 3, the minutes of the disciplinary committee, which is the information set forth in the separate list No. 1 No. 3, include the contents that the plaintiff attended the disciplinary committee and proceeded with the disciplinary procedure and that the chairperson and the members of the disciplinary committee are closed to the public. Among them, the part that the plaintiff raised by the disciplinary committee present at the disciplinary committee cannot be deemed to seriously impede the execution of corrective duties because it is difficult to see that such part may infringe on an individual's personality and privacy or interfere with the securing of fairness by harming free evaluation. Thus, the part that the disciplinary committee reviewed and resolved as a non-disclosure cannot freely exchange with his/her own will with psychological pressure if disclosed, and even if it is likely that it would compromise with the parties or external intentions, it should be closed to the public pursuant to Article 7 (1) No. 5 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the purpose of disclosure can only be achieved by disclosing a copy by separating or copying this part.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning the claim for cancellation of the information other than the information listed in the [Attachment 1] Nos. 2, 4, and 5 among the instant lawsuit and the work report among the dispositions No. 1 of this case shall be dismissed, and the part concerning the minutes of the disciplinary committee, excluding the part concerning the work report among the dispositions No. 1 of this case against the plaintiff and the part concerning the deliberation and resolution by the chairperson and the members of the disciplinary committee among the dispositions No. 2 of this case against the plaintiff, shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit.

[Attachment 1]

Judge Lee Il-il (Presiding Judge)