The case holding that a budget request by budget compilation division, which is the internal data referred to the local government in preparing a budget bill, does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act.

The case holding that the budget request for each division of budget compilation, which is the internal data that the local government refers to when preparing a budget bill, can be deemed as a matter corresponding to the internal review process of budget compilation, but the interests such as guaranteeing the residents' right to know about the budget compilation process protected by disclosure rather than the interests such as fairness in performing duties protected by non-disclosure, such as guaranteeing the residents' right to know, participating in the budget compilation, the participation in the budget compilation, the appropriateness, rationality, and transparency in the budget compilation process, do not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Official

Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

ASEAN Participatory Budget Citizens Network

Asan Market (Law Firm, Attorneys So Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

February 22, 2006

1. The Defendant’s decision to disclose information to the Plaintiff on October 13, 2005 regarding the budget request for each budget department in the Asan City budget compilation department in the year 2006, which was made against the Plaintiff, shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff's status

The plaintiff is an organization established on August 25, 2005, which is a civil society organization that is a civil society organization in the ASEAN, a YMCA, an ASEAN citizen's association, an ASEAN citizen's association, a female citizen's association, a mountainous district department, an ASEAN citizen's association, an ASEAN citizen's association, a local government research group, and a local government research group, and has the executive committee, a representative and an executive body, for the purpose of realizing financial democracy through the citizen participation process.

(b) Details of disposition;

(1) On September 14, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for disclosure of information as to the entire revised supplementary budget proposals and the results of the deliberation in the year 2005 and the budget request for each division of the budget compilation room in the year 2006.

(2) On September 26, 2005, the Defendant sent a revised supplementary budget bill and the results of deliberation to the Plaintiff via the Internet and sent a revised supplementary budget bill to the Plaintiff by mail, which is the result of the examination. However, with respect to the budget request by division in the budget compilation room in the 2006 budget compilation room (hereinafter “instant budget request”), the instant budget request is not wholly executed for a certain period in the budget compilation, and is collected for the review and deliberation inside the Defendant for the budget compilation, and if disclosed, it may cause problems such as equity, infinite demand for restriction, and urgent conflict of interest among the organizations. Since it falls under Article 9(1)5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), the Defendant notified the Defendant that it was not disclosed.

(3) After that, on September 28, 2005, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant’s non-disclosure decision of the instant budget request, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on October 13, 2005, after deliberation by the Asan City Information Disclosure Council on October 12, 2005, that the instant budget request should not be disclosed, but if a partial disclosure request is made, it shall be examined to determine whether to disclose the request (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] : Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

The plaintiff has a permanent human and physical organization for recognition as an organization and has existed to achieve the common purpose by articles of association, etc. rather than for a group of civic groups to participate in the compilation of the budget of the Asan City, and it is merely a group within the scope of the above purpose that is convened and scattered jointly within the scope of the above purpose and does not have the organizational nature to be the subject of independent rights and obligations. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be the subject of the request for information disclosure or the plaintiff of the lawsuit of this case.

(b) Markets:

Article 5(1) of the Information Disclosure Act provides that "All citizens shall have the right to request the disclosure of information," which includes not only natural persons, but also juristic persons, unincorporated associations and foundations. In the case of juristic persons, unincorporated associations and foundations, etc., the purpose of establishment is unclear. On the other hand, since the right to request the disclosure of information is specific rights protected by law, the claimant's filing a request for the disclosure of information with respect to public institutions and the rejection disposition is the infringement of legal interests (Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8050 Decided December 12, 2003, etc.).

In the instant case, according to the above facts, the Plaintiff appears to have the substance of an unincorporated association, which is a group of multiple persons organized for a certain purpose, and is an unincorporated association that externally represents the association. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the ability to claim the disclosure of the instant information. As recognized earlier, as long as the Plaintiff requested the disclosure of information to the Defendant and received the disposition of the instant case, there is a legal interest to seek the cancellation of the disposition, so the Defendant’s principal safety defense is without merit.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

Opinions of the Parties

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The disclosure of the budget request of this case is necessary for the substantial and reasonable budget deliberation and transparent operation of the Council, the residents' right to know about the process of formulating the budget, and the activation of the resident participation budget system presented by the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs in the direction of local finance operation. On the other hand, the disclosure of the budget request of this case does not constitute a case where the fair performance of duties in the Asan City and the Asan City City market is likely to be significantly impeded. Thus, the disposition of this case on the premise that the budget request of this case constitutes information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5

(2) The defendant's assertion

The budget request for each office, which is the internal data that the local government refers to when preparing a budget bill, may be included in the information subject to non-disclosure as prescribed by Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act, and where each office or internal review process is disclosed. If a budget request for each office or division is disclosed, the disposition of this case is legitimate as long as it does not disclose the budget request of this case pursuant to Article 9(1)5 of the Act, due to the following reasons: (a) awareness of opinions about the budget of the head of each office or division; (b) mistake in the formation of the residents' business; (c) uncertainty in the compilation of the budget; (d) fairness between each organization; (e) the cost of equity between each organization; (e) restriction on the budget request; and (e) conflict in the smooth performance of the budget deliberation of the

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) Examining the legislative intent of information subject to non-disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act, “matters in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making, or internal review” in Article 9(1)5 of the same Act shall be deemed to have been listed as an example of information subject to non-disclosure. Thus, when the decision-making process or internal review process has been decided and executed or the minutes, etc. on which the relevant data or decision-making process provided in the process of decision-making process or internal review have been recorded, they shall not be deemed to have been included in the decision-making process or internal review process, but may be included in the information subject to non-disclosure. In light of the purpose of the information disclosure system and the legislative intent of the information subject to non-disclosure, “where there is considerable reason to believe that the fair performance of duties would significantly interfere with the fair performance of duties,” the issue of whether it falls under this shall be compared with the interests of the public, such as fairness in the performance of duties, and the interests of the people, 20.

(2) We examine the instant case.

(A) First, there is no dispute between the parties that each office or department's budget request is prepared based on the basic guidelines for local government budget planning formulated by the Minister of the Interior, which contain the direction of local government finance operation, projects subject to intensive investment, etc., and the basic guidelines of the Mayor/Do Governor, and submitted to the budget management department based on each office or department, and that it is used as internal review data that compiles the budget bill to be submitted to the City Council. In light of the above facts of recognition, the budget request of this case can not be deemed to be itself a matter in the process of internal review of the Defendant's budget compilation in 206, but can be included in the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 (1) 5 of the Information Disclosure Act.

(B) Next, as to whether the instant budget request falls under “where there is a reasonable ground to believe that the fair performance of duties would be significantly impeded,” Articles 1, 3, and 6 of the Information Disclosure Act shall be disclosed to all citizens in principle in order to guarantee citizens’ right to know and secure citizens’ participation in state affairs and transparency in state administration. Thus, in order to refuse the disclosure of the instant budget request, the Defendant must prove that there is a high probability that fair performance of duties would considerably interfere objectively with the disclosure of the instant budget request. However, if the instant budget request cited as the grounds for the instant disposition is disclosed, there is a possibility that the Defendant may cause serious interference with the fair performance of duties by disclosing the instant budget request, on the sole basis of the fact that there is a concern that there is a possibility that the instant budget request, which is cited as the grounds for the instant disposition, may seriously interfere with the fair performance of duties, by disclosing the instant budget request, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there is a lack of objectively high probability of objectively impeding the fair performance of duties.

Rather, the budget supervision division prepared the budget request of this case through the public announcement procedure and submitted it to the City Council. It seems that the City Council had already completed the resolution of the budget bill. It appears that several local self-government organizations, such as Gwangju Northern-gu, are disclosing the budget request for each room and department. Each room and division or the head of Eup/Myeon/Dong, who has the most professional and specific information about the demand of each sector, may prepare the budget request for each category of projects related to each unit of work, the policy improvement project, the residents' accommodation project, the request for the head of Eup/Myeon/Dong, the proposal project of the Si Council, and the ordinary expenses for the operation of each unit of work, such as the cost of the project, and submission to the budget supervision division, and attach documents that are deemed necessary for the budget compilation procedure, such as the cost of the project plan, etc., which are approved by Act No. 763, Aug. 4, 2005; the head of each local government already prepared and implemented the budget request for each category of local government's participation in the budget compilation procedure.

(C) Ultimately, the instant budget request cannot be deemed as “information that has considerable grounds to believe that the disclosure would seriously interfere with the fair performance of the budget deliberation of the Asan City or the budget compilation work of the Asan City City,” and thus cannot be deemed as falling under the subject of non-disclosure under Article 9(1)5 of the Information Disclosure Act. Thus, the instant disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on this ground is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Jae-sop (Presiding Judge)