2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on August 24, 2012 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

A. On August 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Defendant for the disclosure of the information on the list of inmates in Daejeon Prison between ① December 12, 1950 to January 1, 1951, ② the identification number of inmates in Daejeon Prison, ③ the details of inmates in Daejeon Prison (Management Number B) on January 14, 1951 (hereinafter “instant request for the disclosure of information”).

B. On August 24, 2012, pursuant to Article 9(1)6 of the former Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), the Defendant rendered a partial decision to disclose the details of disclosure after eliminating all personal information including prisoners’ names (see the evidence No. 3; hereinafter “the remaining decision to disclose information”) only to the information referred to in the above paragraph (3).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 13, Eul evidence 5 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Objects to be adjudicated by this Court;

A. On the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the instant disposition, the court of first instance revoked the instant disposition on the name, age, and area of origin (other than specific lot numbers) of a prisoner in the Daejeon Prison (Management Number D-E) from 1950 to 1951, and dismissed the remainder of the claim for information.

B. The plaintiff and the defendant appealed against each part of the judgment of the court of first instance. The judgment of the court of first instance prior to remand accepted part of the defendant's appeal, and revoked the disposition of this case on the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "information of this case") except for those who were written prior to September 28, 1950 or written prior to September 1, 1950 or written prior to the date of detention or the date of confinement (including those who were written prior to September 28, 1950 or written subsequent after February 1, 1951), and revoked the disposition of this case on the remaining part of the information except for those who were written prior to September 28, 1950 or written after February 1, 1951.

C. The Defendant appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed the part of the judgment against the Defendant prior to remand, and remanded it to this court.

D. Since the judgment of the party prior to the above remand and the judgment of the Supreme Court ruled that the part concerning the remaining information except the information of this case among the plaintiff's claims became final and conclusive against the plaintiff, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the part reversed and remanded as above.

3. Whether the instant disposition regarding the instant information was lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On September 28, 1950, the State, including the Plaintiff’s dead body C (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), forced the citizens of Seoul to take a fluence with a fluence covering of the people’s body. At the time, 122 Seoul residents, including the deceased, who were confined in the Seodaemun-gu Office, were removed from the Daejeon District Office on December 1950 and died of a fluence around January 1951 due to the adviser, etc. Even though the 60th anniversary of the death of the victims, the State failed to officially notify the bereaved families, including the Plaintiff, of the death of the victims, and thereby, avoided responsibilities, such as the Plaintiff’s efforts to discover harm, etc., and the bereaved families, including the Plaintiff, were unable to confirm the death of the victims, and thus, the Plaintiff’s request for information disclosure should be made in lieu of the Defendant’s right to know, and the Plaintiff’s request was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) As the Korean War was launched on June 25, 1950, the sentence of death was possible for all criminal acts on the 28th day of the same month, the public trial was held within 20 days after the prosecution on the degree of the trial, and the judgment was completed within 40 days after the prosecution, and the judgment was rendered once by a single judge, and the Presidential Emergency Order No. 1, a Presidential Emergency Order No. 1, stating that evidence may be omitted, was issued.

2) After the Uniform of Seoul on September 28, 1950, soldiers suspected of serving in the National People's Office were arrested in Daejeon District Office in accordance with the above order of special measures. Despite the fact that about 75% of the building was destroyed due to the heavy shooting at the time of the occupation of the People's Forces, inmates with more than 1,000 inmates were arrested in prison and sick due to the shortage of food, medicine, etc. as well as accommodation facilities, and the situation has deteriorated as inmates were reduced in Seoul around December of the same year.

3) From January 13, 1951, which was the time of retirement from the Daejeon District Court, inmates of the Daejeon District Office were transferred to Busan District Office from January 13, 1951, which was the time of retirement, and many prisoners transferred were left away from the thirst and thirst, and died. In addition, the 11th military police squad was arrested at the 17th of the same month immediately before the retirement from Daejeon District, and the 166th military police officer was arrested at the 3th of the same month, who was sentenced to death penalty at the 10th of the Daejeon District Court, and executed the death penalty within the Daejeon District by mobilization of 10 military policemen and 100 police officers who were sentenced to death penalty at the Daejeon District Court of Law, and at the time, the prison of the Daejeon District Office stated that "the military police officer of the Daejeon District Office cannot move to the post at the time of retirement from Grade 1 and 4, which caused death within the category of persons who committed life or quality of crime."

4) As seen above, as the handling of the subordinate to the military after the Uniform of Seoul on September 28, 1950 became important, not only Daejeon and Chungcheongnam area, but also those suspected of being transferred to the Daejeon District Office in Seoul in the process of the investigation but also died due to the symptoms after the investigation, but also the chemical vehicles moving to the Busan District Office, and the war vehicles moving to the Busan District Office (hereinafter referred to as the "savement of inmates in the Daejeon District Office") neglected to the poor accommodation of the Busan District Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Savement of prisoners in the Daejeon District Office").

5) Pursuant to Article 19 of the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for Truth and Reconciliation, the Plaintiff filed an application for ascertaining the truth of the deceased’s case with the Korean Film Mediation Committee for Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean History Mediation Committee”).

6) From January 2006 to November 2, 2006, the past History Settlement Board received an application for ascertaining the truth of the sacrifice case of prisoners in the Daejeon or Chungcheong area, conducted an investigation by the applicant, a witness investigation, data investigation, etc., and conducted the investigation by seven persons including the deceased on June 22, 2010 and died of the death of the deceased, and one person was sworn within the mountain at the time of the retirement of January 4, 201, confirmed that he/she was the victim of the sacrifice case of prisoners in the Daejeon or Chungcheong area, and notified the Plaintiff of this fact on July 9 of the same year. Among them, the content of the deceased is as follows.

After September 28, 1951, the deceased was killed on January 4, 1951 due to an advisory post that was taken during the investigation process after he was discharged to the National Defense Team, and was committed in Seodaemun-gu Office. The deceased was subject to harsh acts, such as adviser, in the process of going through the investigation. When the deceased was at the Seodaemun-gu Office, his family members had a visit, and at the time, the deceased did not have a very rough health due to harsh acts, such as adviser, etc.

7) The Committee on the Settlement of History recognized the State’s responsibility in the determination of ascertaining the truth, and recommended that the State be seriously killed for victims and their bereaved families, support the memorial projects for victims, correct the family relation register entered in the family register when their bereaved families want, and enforce the education of human rights, such as mandatory education of domestic law and relevant international law, which contain matters concerning the protection of civilians in the war against military police officers and public officials.

8) From 1950 to 1951, the list of inmates in the Daejeon Prison was 7 chron 676 pages in total (management number D to E). In that context, the name of the crime including personal identification information, such as the number, name, address, permanent domicile of the prisoner, and the name of the punishment and the term of punishment are included, and the list of inmates on January 14, 1951 constitutes the management number B in the above list of inmates. In addition, the identification number of inmates in the Daejeon Prison is a total number of 54 chron 54 (Management number F to G) and 849 personal identification cards that contain personal identification cards, execution orders, inspection marks, impression characteristics, etc. of the prisoner.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4, 5, 7 through 11, Gap evidence 14-1, 2, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 9-1 through 7, Eul evidence 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "personal information, such as name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, is deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or the freedom of privacy." Article 9(1)6 of the same Act provides that "information prepared or acquired by a public institution, which is deemed necessary for the public interest or for the relief of rights of individuals, is excluded." Here, whether disclosure constitutes "information deemed necessary for the public interest or for the relief of rights of individuals" should be determined carefully in accordance with specific cases by comparing and comparing the interests of individuals protected by the non-disclosure such as the privacy of individuals and public interest, such as securing transparency in national administration, which is protected by the disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1424, Oct. 10, 2009).

2) In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to this case’s statements in the evidence Nos. 9 and 10 as to this case’s legal doctrine, it cannot be readily concluded that the disclosure of the instant information does not constitute “information that is deemed necessary for the public interest,” and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the disclosure of the instant information does not constitute “information that is deemed necessary for the public interest.”

A) The Plaintiff was the bereaved family member of the deceased who made a sacrifice in the Daejeon District, who was sacrificed as the sacrifice case of the Defendant in the Daejeon District, and was forced to go to the Seodaemun District Office due to the suspicion of the Defendant’s negligence, including the Deceased, and was removed to the Daejeon District Office on December 1950, 1950. On January 1, 1951, the Plaintiff sought the instant information disclosure that he would carry out memorial projects, such as the installation of a memorial tower. However, among the prisoners included in the instant information, the Plaintiff may not be deemed the victims of the Daejeon District Office’s sacrifice case, and it is difficult to see whether the Plaintiff was a victim of the Daejeon District Office’s sacrifice, solely based on the list of prisoners who requested the information disclosure and the status of inmates, etc.

B) The instant information alone may infringe on their privacy or freedom when it is likely to identify inmates or their bereaved family members, or when it is possible to identify them by comparison or collusion with at least other information.

3) Thus, the instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the instant disposition as to the instant information part cannot be deemed unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the information of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is unfair in conclusion, the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the cancellation part shall be dismissed and it is so decided as per

Judges Invitations

Judges Lee Jae-in

A person shall be appointed.