(영문) 대전고등법원 2018.2.1. 선고 2017누10874 판결

A. On October 30, 2014, the Defendant dismissed the Defendant’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the part on each working environment measurement report from 1986 to 2006 of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on the information part of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of the information pertaining to the report on the result of light measurement of work exchange conducted by Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd., Ltd. with respect to the Plaintiff on October 30, 2014.

B. On October 30, 2014, the Defendant’s refusal to disclose part of the information pertaining to the report on the result of the analysis of work exchange conducted by Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. for the Plaintiff on October 30, 2014, with the exception of the list No. 1, the remainder of each work environment measurement report from 2007 to 2014, excluding “the name of an individual whose harmful factor results” is revoked.

C. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. One-fifth of the total litigation costs is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On October 30, 2014, the defendant's refusal to disclose information on the report on the result of working environment measurement conducted by Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. against the plaintiff on October 30, 2014, with the exception of the attached Table 1.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

The court's explanation on this part is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding "No. 10 (hereinafter referred to as "information")" for "No. 2, 10 (hereinafter referred to as "information" or "the report of this case") to "information of this case", "the location map of harmful factors by unit workplace" among the information of this case, "the location map of the measurement of harmful factors by unit workplace" is "the location map of this case", "No. 1 through 3" for "No. 5 (including the location number if the location number is available; hereinafter the same shall apply)" for "No. 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act."

2. Whether the revocation of the part of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on each of the instant reports from 1986 to 2006 is legitimate

Ex officio, we examine whether the action for revocation of the part of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on each of the instant reports from 1986 to 2006 is legitimate.

In addition to the purport of oral argument as to Gap evidence No. 4, i.e., the following circumstances: (i) according to the written ruling of the Central Administrative Appeals Commission (No. 2015-03740, and No. 4), the defendant stated that the report of this case was not held with respect to each of the reports from 1986 to 2006; and (ii) the court requested the defendant to submit the original report of this case to the full bench for non-disclosure inquiry; (iii) the defendant submitted only the report of this case from 2007 to 2014; (iv) the plaintiff did not specifically raise an objection to the fact that the report of this case had not been submitted before December 13, 2017, and (iv) the plaintiff did not seek revocation of the disclosure of information of this case from 1986 to 206; and therefore, (v) the plaintiff did not have any legal interest in each of the reports of this case from 2018 to 206 to 2006.16.16.6

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful (the part of the instant report from 2007 to 2014)

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant information does not constitute “business secrets” under Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act that significantly undermines the legitimate interests of corporations, etc. The disclosure thereof does not constitute “business secrets”. Even if it falls under such cases, checking the risk of toxic chemicals, etc. used at each relevant workplace of the Samsung Climate Plant falls under the category of “information that needs to be disclosed in order to protect people’s lives, bodies, or health from danger caused by business activities” under the proviso of Article 9(1)7 of the Information Disclosure Act, which is directly connected to the safety and health of the deceased and incumbent workers at the pre- and incumbent workplace, such as the deceased, and that it is very important to ensure the safety and health rights of the former and incumbent workers, and that it is directly related to the safety and health of residents living in the workplace and

(b) Related statutes;

Attached 2 is as shown in the "related Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In light of the fact that 'right to know', i.e., freedom to collect and process information is a right directly guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution because it shares the nature of right to freedom and right to claim. The Information Disclosure Act enacted for the specific realization also declares the principle of information disclosure by allowing the disclosure of information held and managed by public institutions in principle, and Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act lists exceptional reasons, a public institution requested disclosure of information held and managed by the public must disclose information unless it falls under reasons for non-disclosure provided for in each subparagraph of Article 9(1) of the Information Disclosure Act. Even if such disclosure is refused, it shall be determined specifically by examining the contents of the information, and it shall be argued and proved as falling under any of the above subparagraphs even if it conflicts with the legal interests of the public or fundamental rights and, in light of the legislative purpose and purport of the Act, ensuring the citizen's right to know and secure transparency in government affairs and government administration, it is necessary to interpret the aforementioned provision as legitimate and justifiable information disclosure purposes of Article 2 of the Information Disclosure Act.

2) There is no dispute between the parties that the part other than the personal name (the name of workers) of the measurement location map of the instant case and the result of measurement of harmful factors at each unit work site among the instant information, does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act. Meanwhile, the above facts and evidence, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence, 12, 13, 17, 21, Eul's evidence 3, 4, and the result of inquiry into the president of the Korea Institute of Public Health and Medical Services, an incorporated association of the court of this case (hereinafter "the result of inquiry of this case") by adding the whole arguments to the whole purport of the pleading, it is difficult to view the measurement location of this case as an individual's management and trade secret. In addition, if the measurement location of this case is disclosed, it is difficult to view that the information of Samsung electronic as the subject of non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 9 of the Information Disclosure Act is considerably weak because it is not likely to undermine the individual's private interests.

A) The instant information included the results of the “work environment measurement report” [the harmful factors, the highest level of measurement), I.D. measurement and exposure standards by harmful factors, and II. Preliminary assessment results [the actual state of chemical use by process and harmful factor measurement (location and process, harmful factors, harmful factors, workers), and process], II. Working environment measurement results by process [the degree of harmful factors measurement by unit work place (excluding noise), ② Working environment measurement results by unit work place (excluding noise) - division or process, unit work place, number of workers, measuring location (name of workers), harmful factors, measuring value, ③ Working environment measurement results by unit work place (noise or process, unit work place, unit work place, measurement location), and W. The instant report contains four names and fair names, but does not indicate any arrangement among them, and the content of the instant report does not include any description on the quantity of each productiond facility, type and equipment, the number of chemical production capacity separately from the quantity of each productiond facility, production capacity, type of equipment, labor cost, and other relevant factors.

B) According to the results of the fact-finding of this case, "unit work" in industrial health refers to "work that can be exposed to similar harmful factors by performing similar or similar types of work," and "the measuring location map (location map) of harmful factors at each unit work site" refers to not stating detailed information on specific process, but indicating a rough and brief location (branch) of collecting the work location or sample of a person subject to measurement in the master plan of a factory drawing. In addition, according to the above fact-finding result, such measurement location or point is important in the aspect of working environment management. This is used as data for management measures such as identifying the source of chemical concentration by verifying that the concentration appears high, and improving this part is used as data for the improvement of management measures, and it can be immediately determined after the appropriateness of the measurement point, and if a person moves to and travels in the workplace, the possibility of exposure can be inferred from multiple combined data.

C) According to the above B, the measurement location of this case is merely the measurement location of harmful factors on the general drawing of Samsung Electric Plant. It is difficult to view the measurement location of this case as "business secrets of corporations, etc." under Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act. However, if the measurement location of this case is comparison with other information disclosed, it can be generally understood that the relevant harmful factors have been measured at a certain point of the factory. However, even if the chemical substance containing the relevant harmful factors is very diverse products, it can be made by combination of various harmful factors, ② the general semiconductor production process has already been disclosed in considerable parts through the Internet, etc., ③ The report of this case is merely indicated such as Drain name and number of workers, ③ the number of production capacity of each production equipment and equipment, the number of chemical substance used by the defendant, the number of equipment used, the number of equipment used, and the content of each production and automatic equipment, etc., the number of equipment used, the number of equipment used, the production and automatic equipment and its related factors are not disclosed.

E) On the contrary, the Plaintiff must have a location map of the instant measurement, and the Plaintiff is able to know how and how much harmful factors are exposed and actually exposed at any place within the relevant workplace, and it is highly necessary to disclose as information directly related to the life, body, and health of workers.

3) Whether it falls under the proviso of subparagraph 9(1)7(a) of the Information Disclosure Act

Even if the measurement location level of this case constitutes "business and trade secrets of a corporation" under the main sentence of Article 9 (1) 7 of the Information Disclosure Act, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that it constitutes "information that needs to be disclosed to the public in order to protect property or livelihood from risks arising from business activities under the proviso of item (a) of the same subparagraph (hereinafter "the proviso of this case").

A) A working environment measurement system based on Article 42 of the Industrial Safety and Health Act functions as a prior method to take measures to protect workers by measuring and evaluating how much workers are exposed to harmful factors occurring at the workplace, including improving facilities and equipment of harmful workplaces, and thereby taking measures to protect workers.

B) In the case of semiconductors, including Samsung C&M factories, the use of chemical products can leak harmful factors, radiation, etc. in the air in the workplace, including sulfur, bench, and saldehyde. It is also known to a considerable portion through recent reports, papers, etc. related thereto that the use of chemical products causes adverse effects on workers’ body and health. Furthermore, the Defendant’s assertion that employees or their bereaved family members, who were employed in the process of the production of semiconductors and L.D. in the late half of 200 and 200, applied for an industrial accident compensation proposal on the ground of occupational disease, etc. was already revealed through media, etc. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the working environment of Samsung C&M factories only exists as abstract and subjective possibility of causing harm.

C) The instant report is a document stating the result of working environment measurement conducted for Samsung Climate Plant, a semiconductor workplace. The disclosure of the instant information is deemed to be important for ensuring the safety and health rights of the former and incumbent workers in the relevant workplace, as well as for protecting the safety and health rights of the former and incumbent workers in the relevant workplace, and for the value of life, body, etc. of residents in the neighborhood where the relevant workplace is located.

D) The Defendant asserts to the effect that, since 1998, “the deceased worked outside D’s role as an intermediate manager of production facilities, etc., and did not work in the process subject to the instant report, it does not fall under the proviso of this case because it is not directly related to the instant report.”

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the deceased worked outside the production line in the report of this case only with the statement No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, according to the statement No. 15, the deceased is deemed to have performed the chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip chip, gold line chip equipment, equipment management, and facility automation. Furthermore, the administrative agency’s duty to disclose information under the Information Disclosure Act is an objective duty to guarantee the benefit of information itself as its right, regardless of whether it is related to a particular case’s interest. Accordingly, the defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is unlawful in revocation of the part of the disposition rejecting information disclosure as to each report from 1986 to 2006 among the report of this case, and it is dismissed, and the remaining part of the claim excluding "the name of an individual as to the result of harmful factors as to each unit work place" is accepted, and the remaining part (the name of an individual as to the result of the above measurement) is dismissed as there is no reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is improper in some different conclusions. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal of this case is partially accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as per Disposition.