[2] The case holding that the above disposition based on Article 9 (1) 6 of the former Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions was unlawful in a case where Gap filed a request for disclosure of information other than personal information in the form of a copy and output of a decision on the request for disclosure of all the information received by the police station for one year, but the chief of the police station rejected such disclosure

[2] Where Party A filed a request for disclosure of information except for personal information in the form of a copy or output of a written notice of decision on all requests received by the police station for one year, but the chief of the police station rendered a rejection disposition based on Article 9(1)6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “former Information Disclosure Act”), the case holding that Party A requested disclosure of personal information at the time and request for disclosure, and that Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Official Information Disclosure Act [Attachment Form 7] of the Official Information Disclosure Act is separate from “date and time of disclosure,” “place of disclosure, method of disclosure,” and “the method of receipt” to the Information Disclosure notice constitutes “information disclosure” under Article 9(1)6 of the former Information Disclosure Act, which is deemed unlawful or likely to infringe on the freedom of personal information under Article 9(1)6 of the former Information Disclosure Act, on the grounds that the information sought by Party A does not constitute “information disclosure”.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On January 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of information, excluding personal information in the form of a copy and output, from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (hereinafter “instant notice”).

B. On January 25, 2013, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for information disclosure (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground of Article 9(1)6 of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “former Information Disclosure Act”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In principle, information held and managed by public institutions is subject to disclosure unless it falls under information subject to non-disclosure as prescribed by Article 9 of the former Information Disclosure Act. The Plaintiff requested disclosure of personal information, other than information subject to non-disclosure. Even if the information pertaining to the privacy of an individual is included in the information of this case, the Defendant, pursuant to Article 14 of the former Information Disclosure Act, should disclose the remaining part of the notice excluding the information pertaining to the privacy of an individual, but the disposition of this case rejecting the Plaintiff’s

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Article 9(1)6 of the former Information Disclosure Act provides that information held and managed by a public institution shall be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, unless it is non-disclosure information under each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Act, and Article 9(1)6 of the same Act provides that “information concerning individuals, such as names, resident registration numbers, etc. included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals.” The legislative intent of the above provision is to prevent infringement of the privacy or freedom of individuals, which may be caused by the unlimited disclosure of personal information of third parties held by a public institution on the ground of citizens’ right to know, etc.

Meanwhile, Article 14 of the former Information Disclosure Act provides that, where information requested for disclosure contains information subject to non-disclosure and information that can be disclosed, the part falling under non-disclosure and the part that can be disclosed shall be separated within the scope not inconsistent with the purport of the request for disclosure and partial disclosure. This does not mean the case where the two parts can be physically separated, but it is possible to exclude or delete the technology, etc. related to the information subject to non-disclosure from the information in question in light of the method and procedure for disclosure of the information in question and to disclose the remaining information only, and it shall be interpreted that the information alone contains the value of disclosure (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12707, Dec. 9, 2004).

(5) In light of the following circumstances: (i) the Plaintiff already requested disclosure of personal information while making a request for disclosure of the instant information to the Busan Police Agency; (ii) the details to be stated in the notice on the request for disclosure of information to the public prosecutor’s office other than the details of the request; (iii) the method of disclosure; (iv) the amount of payment; and (iv) the details to be indicated in the notice on the request for disclosure of information to the public prosecutor’s office other than the details of the request; and (v) the details of the request for disclosure of information to the public prosecutor’s office other than the details of the request; and (v) the details of the request for disclosure of information to the public prosecutor’s office, other than those of the Busan Police Agency’s request for disclosure; and (v) the details of the request for disclosure of information to the public prosecutor’s office, other than those of the request for disclosure of information to the public prosecutor’s office, are not likely to infringe on the Plaintiff’s freedom of disclosure of information by the public prosecutor’s office.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on Article 9(1)6 of the former Information Disclosure Act is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the disposition of this case shall be revoked in an unlawful manner, so the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Hyun-tae (Presiding Judge)