2019Guhap6604 Revocation of Disposition rejecting a request for administrative information disclosure

A

The Minister of Environment

July 9, 2020

2020,9.10

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for revocation of a disposition rejecting disclosure of administrative information pertaining to the information listed in Section 1-A, (c), (2, and (3) of the Schedule 1 for Information Disclosure Claim and the information listed in Section 1-B of the same Schedule, excluding the landowner’s name and address, shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's rejection disposition against disclosure of administrative information against the plaintiff on September 2, 2019 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 2, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of each information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Attachment No. 1 List”) related to the decision to modify C-D access roads (hereinafter referred to as the “road project in this case”) in B-D national park planning. B. The Defendant decided on September 2, 2019 and the Plaintiff as follows (hereinafter referred to as the “decision of this case”) (the following, and the detailed details are as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2).

1) Each information listed in paragraphs (a) and (3) of Annex 1: Disclosure;

2) Information listed in Attached List 1-B: Information listed in Attached List 1-C and 1-2 (2) excluding the landowner’s name and address (the next part of the landowner’s name and address is referred to as “the instant personal information”) is disclosed on the ground that there is no information. In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant specified the ground for non-disclosure of the instant personal information as the main text of Article 9(1)6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (the next part of the Act on Information Disclosure by Public Institutions) (the second part of the Act on Information Disclosure by Public Institutions) (the second part of the Act on Information Disclosure by Public Institutions).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 of Evidence Nos. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Table 3 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

3. Determination as to the claim for revocation of the disposition of refusal of disclosure of administrative information on the remainder other than the personal information of this case among the information listed in Section 1-A, (c), (2, and (3) of Attached Table 1 and the information listed in Section 1-B of Attached Table 1

A. On September 2, 2019, the Defendant, by the instant decision, disclosed the information listed in paragraphs (a) and (3) of Attached Table 1, and the remainder of Paragraph (b) of Attached Table 1, other than the instant personal information, to the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for disclosure that each part of the information was not disclosed, and there is no benefit to claim disclosure as to the disclosed information, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful.

B. The Defendant made a non-disclosure decision with the purport that no information specified in paragraphs (c) and (2) of attached Table 1 should be retained. The instant road project does not fall under a project subject to the assessment of natural environment pursuant to Article 5 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Natural Parks Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment No. 186 of September 30, 2005), and is not subject to the public notice of the determination of a park project implementation plan pursuant to Article 19 of the Natural Parks Act as a project implemented at the early Si other than the Defendant, a park management agency, and is not subject to the public notice of the determination of a park project implementation plan pursuant to Article 19 of the Natural Parks Act. In light of the circumstances where the National Park Committee examines and resolves the validity of the instant road project, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s right to know by non-disclosure of the instant personal information without presenting any grounds.

B. The Defendant’s specific grounds for non-disclosure of the instant personal information are as seen earlier. The instant personal information constitutes non-disclosure information under the proviso to Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act (where disclosed, such as the name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information) to the name and address of the third party owner of the land. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant personal information falls under any of the items of the proviso to the same subparagraph, which excludes the instant personal information from non-disclosure.

We cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

5. Conclusion

Among the lawsuits in this case, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of rejection of the administrative information disclosure other than the personal information of this case among the information listed in Section 1-A, Section 2, and Section 1-B of the attached Table 1 of the same list is unlawful and thus, it is dismissed. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed on the grounds that they are without merit.

The presiding judge, the Korean Judge;

Judges Lee Dong-chul

Judges Cho Jong-chul