(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.11.24. 선고 2016구합71133 판결

1. On July 18, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the disclosure of information about the history of middle schools and the standard information for writing of Korean curriculum books for high school history under the revised curriculum for the Plaintiff on July 18, 2015 is revoked.

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

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The previous curriculum books for middle and high schools were classified into authorized books or authorized books. On November 3, 2015, the Defendant issued a public notice of the classification of national, inspection and recognition of curriculum books for middle and high schools (No. 2015-78 of the Ministry of Education No. 201 of the Ministry of Education) on the same day with the content that the curriculum books for middle and high schools and the Korean History Text (hereinafter referred to as “Korean History Text”) should be published as government-designated books (hereinafter referred to as “Korean History Text”) and entrusted compilation to the National Private History Committee.

B. The Defendant and the National Institute of Korean History established a list of 47 history textbooks authors composed of 47 professors, Guwons, middle and high school teachers, etc. on November 30, 2015, through the public announcement of writing writers’ public announcement, etc., and confirmed the list of 16 historical textbook compilation deliberation committees comprised of 16 professors, researchers, middle and high school teachers, parents, etc. on November 30, 2015.

C. The Compilation Review Committee deliberated on the compilation standards of textbooks, correspondence, etc., and decided to take charge of the role of requiring revision and supplementation after reviewing and deliberating the Plaintiff of the textbook in the textbook writing process.

D. On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for the disclosure of the information on the history of a middle school and Korean curriculum books for high school history (hereinafter “instant information”) based on the revised curriculum in 2015, but the Defendant rendered a decision not to disclose the instant information on July 18, 2016 on the ground that the instant information constitutes Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 2-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Determination

In Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act, "audit and supervision," which is defined as information subject to non-disclosure.

In light of the purpose of the information disclosure system under Article 1 of the Information Disclosure Act and the legislative intent of Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, “information that is in the process of inspection, examination, regulation, bidding contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review, etc., which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds for remarkably impeding the fair performance of duties,” refers to the case where fair performance of duties is highly probable if disclosed, would substantially interfere with the objective of the information subject to non-disclosure. Whether such information constitutes a case ought to be determined by comparing and comparing the interests protected by non-disclosure such as the fairness of duties, etc., and the interests of the people such as guaranteeing the right to know, securing the people’s participation in government affairs, and securing the transparency of government administration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Du12946, Aug. 22, 2003; 2009Du19021, Nov. 24, 2011).

Even if the evidence presented by the Defendant alone disclosed the instant information, it is difficult to view that there is a high probability that the fair performance of the duties of writing and deliberation of the government textbook would be considerably hindered (or is almost completed as of the date of closing argument in the instant case). Rather, it would be possible to contribute to meeting the people’s right to know about the performance of the duties of writing and deliberation of the government textbook through the disclosure of the instant information, and securing transparency and fairness in the said duties. Accordingly, the instant information does not constitute non-disclosure information under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act.

C. Sub-committee

The disposition of this case is unlawful, and the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.