[1] Whether there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information where a public institution fails to retain and manage information seeking disclosure (negative)

[2] The case holding that data to review the business profitability of free compensation amount to be provided to the members of the apartment reconstruction housing association does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) of the former Information Disclosure Act

[1] In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its state, it shall be sufficient to prove that the person seeking the information disclosure has a considerable probability of holding and managing the information that is requested to be disclosed by the administrative agency. However, if the public institution fails to retain and manage the information, there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the disposition rejecting the information disclosure,

[2] The case holding that data to review the business profitability of free compensation amount to be provided to the members of the apartment reconstruction housing association does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) of the former Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004)

[1] Article 7 (1) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004) and Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 7 (1) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004) (refer to Article 9 (1) of the current Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Du7087 delivered on April 25, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12707 Delivered on December 9, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 119) Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12854 Delivered on January 28, 2005

Plaintiff 1 and 21 others (Attorney Kim Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea National Housing Corporation (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Choi Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2002Nu3097 delivered on July 25, 2003

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding the settlement of accounts with the Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd. is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. The remaining appeals are dismissed.

1. Legal interest, etc. to file a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition rejecting information disclosure

Since the citizen's right to information disclosure is a specific right protected by law, the claimant who requested the public institution to disclose information, but received the disposition rejecting the disclosure, has a legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition rejecting the disclosure through administrative litigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du6425, Mar. 11, 2003).

In the same purport, inasmuch as Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 filed a claim against the Defendant for disclosure of information in its judgment, and they received the disposition of refusal to disclose information in this case, the judgment of the court below that there was a legal interest in seeking revocation of the above disposition, regardless of whether the above Plaintiffs were disqualified as members of the ○○ apartment reconstruction housing association (hereinafter “the ○○ apartment reconstruction association”) after which they became subject to the disposition of refusal to disclose information in this case, the judgment of the court below is justifiable, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to

2. As to the settlement of accounts with the Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd.

In light of the fact that the information disclosure system is a system that discloses information held and managed by a public institution in its state, it shall be sufficient to prove that there is a considerable probability that the person seeking the information disclosure will hold and manage the information that is subject to disclosure. However, in cases where the public institution does not hold and manage such information, there is no legal interest in seeking the revocation of the disposition rejecting the information disclosure (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Du7087, Apr. 25, 2003; 2002Du12854, Jan. 28, 2005, etc.).

According to the records, the defendant alleged that there is no information held and managed other than the agreement on the acquisition of ○○ Reconstruction Project and the notification on the prohibition of settlement of accounts, among the settlement details related to ○○ apartment reconstruction (hereinafter "the information of this case") that the plaintiffs sought disclosure. In such a case, the court below should have reviewed whether the plaintiffs possess and manage the information that they did not actually own and manage, and then should have dismissed the part seeking revocation of the disposition on the refusal of disclosure of the information that the defendant did not have. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the legal interest seeking revocation of the disposition on the refusal of information disclosure, which led to failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the existence of the information held and managed by the defendant.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. As to the calculation details of free compensation

According to the records, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs' statement of calculation of free compensation (this document does not expressly state the name of the defendant regarding this case, but considering the defendant's assertion, the defendant means "the selection of the candidate for △△△△△△△△ Group project and the proposal for the project" inside prior to the participation in the reconstruction project of this case; hereinafter "2 information of this case") examines the business profitability when the free compensation amount to be provided to the members of the non-party association is determined as "previous sale area + underground parking lot 2 square." The defendant can find the fact that the non-party association entered into a reconstruction project agreement including the above provision of free compensation amount with the non-party association on July 27, 201, which is prior to the rejection of disclosure of the information of this case 2 information of this case, and it is difficult to view the non-party association's non-party 2 information of this case as a legitimate ground for disclosure or reconstruction project's disclosure of the information of this case to the non-party 1's association's non-party 2.

As to this part, the court below is just in holding that the disposition rejecting disclosure of the information No. 2 in this case was unlawful, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to information subject to non-disclosure or misunderstanding of facts due to incomplete deliberation

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the first information of this case is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)