(영문) 대법원 2015.2.26. 선고 2014두43318 판결

1. The right to know, in particular, the right to access information held and managed by public institutions, is recognized in relation to the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right under our Constitution, and the content of such right includes the right to request the disclosure of information held and managed by any public institution.

Article 3 of the former Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions (amended by Act No. 11991, Aug. 6, 2013; hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides for the principle of information disclosure that information held and managed by public institutions should be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Article 5(1) provides that all citizens shall have the right to request information disclosure, and Article 6 provides for the contents of the right to request information disclosure and the procedure for its exercise, such as the application of this Act to ensure that the people’s right to request information can be respected, and the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be amended to ensure that the people’s right to request information disclosure can be respected.

Considering the meaning and nature of the general right to request information disclosure, the content and legislative purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, and the fact that the Information Disclosure Act does not impose any limitation on the purpose of using the information or on the grounds for accessing the information in connection with the exercise of the right to request information disclosure, a citizen’s claim for information disclosure should be widely permitted in principle unless it falls under the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act. The claim for information disclosure cannot be readily concluded that the claim for information disclosure is abuse of rights solely on the grounds that the applicant’s purpose or reason for requesting the information is unclear. However, in fact, the right to request information disclosure should not be allowed in cases where it is intended to obtain unjust benefits which are not acceptable by social norms without the intention to acquire or utilize the information in question, or where it is evident that it constitutes abuse of the right, such as in cases where

2. A. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

1) The Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than three years and six months, and repeated a variety of claims against various government agencies for disclosure of information over 150 times. As to the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of information disclosure (hereinafter referred to as “litigation seeking revocation of information disclosure”).

2) The administrative agency decided to disclose or partially disclose the Plaintiff’s information disclosure claim in multiple cases, but the Plaintiff did not receive the relevant information.

3) The Plaintiff appointed a specific attorney as an attorney in a lawsuit claiming the disclosure of information, including the lower court in this case. It is also reasonable that the attorney did not actively conduct pleadings, such as submission of a preparatory document or documentary evidence. The Plaintiff’s attorney at the first instance court and the lower court submitted a written reply to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, and the Plaintiff’s attorney at the second instance court and the lower court were present at once on the date of pleading in the first instance court, and all acts such as preparing a written complaint or submitting other preparatory documents and documentary evidence except the written answer, were conducted directly by the Plaintiff

4) Upon the completion of a lawsuit claiming information disclosure, the Plaintiff recovered the litigation cost by filing an application for confirmation of the amount of the litigation cost including the attorney’s fees, but the Plaintiff was found to have filed a false claim for the cost not actually paid.

5) At least 90 times of the Plaintiff’s appearance in the hearing of a lawsuit claiming the disclosure of information, the Plaintiff appeared in the court nationwide, but the Plaintiff did not pay the cost of attendance in the court.

B. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff did not claim the disclosure of information to the Defendant for the purpose of approaching the information of this case, but rather, if the claim is rejected, the Plaintiff received monetary benefits by winning the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the rejection disposition and paying the amount equivalent to the actual costs of the lawsuit in question through the final procedure for litigation costs after winning the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the rejection disposition, or filed a claim for the disclosure of information with the purpose of evading forced labor by attending the court on the date of pleading

C. Nevertheless, in the instant case, the lower court did not further examine whether there is a special reason for the Plaintiff to request the disclosure of information, and determined that the Plaintiff’s request for the disclosure of information does not constitute an abuse of rights on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and thus, the instant disposition rejecting the request was unlawful. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on abuse of rights on the request

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.