beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional determination as to the Defendant’s assertion in the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【Supplementary Decision】
A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The scope of the instant information cannot be specified unless the period of service in D and C is disclosed. Since the aforementioned period of service is information subject to non-disclosure on personnel management, the Plaintiff’s claim for disclosure of the instant information is not specified. 2) The instant information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure as provided by Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act because it could infringe on the freedom of individuals’ privacy if disclosed.
B. Specific determination 1) In a case where a person who requests disclosure of information on the assertion that the disclosure of information was not specified, enters the content and scope of the information requested to be disclosed in the information disclosure request in the general public, it is sufficient to determine the content and scope of the information requested (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du9212, Mar. 28, 2003). However, as alleged by the Defendant, there is no ground to deem that the work period of the B work period of the D, C, as alleged by the Defendant, falls under personal information on personnel, such as D, C, appointment, dismissal, service, salary, training, etc., or is likely to interfere with personnel management, such as appointment, dismissal, and salary, and further, considering the overall purport of the arguments, it is reasonable to deem that the work period of B work period of the D and C, which was already disclosed in another trial process, is sufficiently specified. Accordingly, this part of the instant information sought by the Plaintiff is without merit.