(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.9.1.선고 2016누34730 판결

On March 31, 2015, the defendant revoked the non-disclosure decision with respect to the information stated in the separate sheet against the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds for the defendant's assertion in the trial while filing an appeal are the same as the defendant's assertion in the trial of the first instance, and even if each evidence submitted in the trial of the first instance and the trial together with the defendant's assertion, the defendant's argument is rejected and the decision of the first instance, which is the plaintiff's claim

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is as follows: (a) the court of first instance dismissed the "this court" of first instance as "the court of first instance and this court", and (b) the fifth and second procedures added "the Government of the United States did not present any opinion on the disclosure of the information of this case, and there seems to be no opinion that the defendant or the Government of the Republic of Korea tried to seek any opinion on the disclosure of the information of this case," and (c) the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is stated except for adding the following judgments, and therefore, (d) the court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition of the Free Trade Agreement is the product of the overall agreement to be entered into by combining various items, and the meaning of a specific item or the negotiation process alone does not make it possible to grasp the meaning of the entire trade agreement or the nature and contents of the negotiation strategy. Thus, the disclosure of the information of this case is deemed to exist to a certain extent that it is not possible to specify or indicate the negotiation strategy or diplomatic disadvantage that is exposed to the disclosure of the information

However, in light of the legislative purpose of the Official Information Disclosure Act, which is based on the principle that information held and managed by public institutions should be disclosed to the people with a view to guaranteeing citizens' right to know and securing citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state administration, it shall be strictly determined whether such information constitutes information subject to non-disclosure, which is the grounds for exceptions, should be strictly determined. In case of refusal of information disclosure for the same reason, such as "constition of considerable harm to the national interest," it is apparent that the interests of the State protected by non-disclosure are greater than the interests of the people that can be enjoyed by the information disclosure, such as guaranteeing citizens' right to know, securing citizens' participation in state affairs, and securing transparency in state administration. Therefore, even when considering the special nature of diplomatic and trade negotiations, it is necessary to assert and prove that the aforementioned comparative balancing and its reasonable judgment can be possible, and the existence of non-disclosure should not be recognized by the general trend alone.

Furthermore, considering the fact that the information of this case is already in an excessive state in which the Korean government and the U.S. government have agreed on the non-disclosure period, more careful consideration should be given to determine whether the information of this case is non-disclosure.

3. Conclusion

If so, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.