[1] In a case where the information requested to be disclosed is mixed with the information subject to non-disclosure and the information subject to non-disclosure, the requirements to revoke only a part of the disposition refusing to disclose

[2] Where the information requested for disclosure contains personal identification information, the criteria for determining whether to disclose the information

[1] Articles 7 (1) (see current Article 9 (1) and 12 (see current Article 14) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004) / [2] Article 7 (1) 6 (c) (see current Article 9 (1) 6 (c)) of the former Official Information Disclosure Act (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Du9794 Decided November 25, 2004 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Du8275 Decided November 28, 2003 (Gong2005Sang, 119) Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12707 Decided December 9, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 119), Supreme Court Decision 2002Du12854 Decided January 28, 2005 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8050 Decided December 12, 2003 (Gong204Sang, 173). Supreme Court Decision 2002Du1342 Decided December 26, 2003; Supreme Court Decision 2002Du13484 Decided May 28, 2004

Press Reform Citizens' Association (Attorney Ansan-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Minister of Justice and one other

Supreme Court Decision 2003Du8395 Delivered on December 11, 2003

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu2372 delivered on July 16, 2004

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ refusal to disclose each of the above information on the grounds of non-disclosure under Article 7(1)6 of the former Information Disclosure Act, is lawful, since it is evident that the Plaintiff’s personal information was included in the criminal records of the Defendant’s Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office’s criminal case where the Plaintiff requested disclosure to the Defendant by the Minister of Justice on August 2, 200, including the personal information that could identify the said 30,647 persons subject to the above amnesty, and that the Defendants’ refusal to disclose the above information on the grounds of non-disclosure under Article 7(1)6 of the former Information Disclosure Act.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A. First, it is evident in the record that the Plaintiff only requested the Defendant to disclose the above amnesty-related information to the Defendant from the beginning of the year of the request for disclosure, and to the Defendant’s 20,000, not to request the disclosure of the information on all the face-to-faces. Thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s personal identification information on the 30,647 face-to-faces, not the information subject to the request for disclosure, is used as a means to deny the disclosure of the information subject to disclosure request

B. Article 12 of the former Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions (amended by Act No. 7127 of Jan. 29, 2004; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that in a case where information requested to be disclosed is mixed with the information falling under the information subject to non-disclosure under each subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the Act and the part that can be disclosed, if two parts can be separated within the scope not contrary to the purport of the request for disclosure, the part that falls under the information subject to non-disclosure should be disclosed should be excluded. Thus, in a case where the court examines the illegality of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information by the administrative agency as to whether the information refused to disclose is combined with the information that can be disclosed and the two parts can be separated within the scope not inconsistent with the purport of the request for disclosure, the court must revoke the disposition rejecting the disclosure of the information by specifying the part that could be disclosed (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du8275, Nov. 28, 2003).

In the reasoning of the judgment below, it is not clear that the purport of the judgment of the court below that the information about an individual is "including the information about the individual" or "part of the information about the individual" is "information about the individual." If the latter purport, the court below should have tried whether the part corresponding to the individual's information can be separated from the non-personal information, and if the information alone is deemed worthy of disclosure, it should have made a separate judgment in accordance with the above legal principles.

C. Furthermore, according to Article 7(1)6(c) of the Act, the disclosure of the instant information may not be refused if it falls under the information deemed necessary for the public interest even if it is an individual’s identity, and according to the records, the Plaintiff continues to assert the disclosure of the instant information for the public interest purpose. Thus, even if the information subject to the disclosure request contains personal information, the lower court should have deliberated on the public interest such as the protection of individual privacy protected by the non-disclosure of the information and the transparency of state administration protected by the disclosure, and determined the legitimacy of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of the instant information by comparison and bridge.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ rejection of disclosure was lawful solely on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s personal identification information included in the above information that the Plaintiff requested disclosure. In so doing, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether individual identification information among the above information can be disclosed, whether it is worth disclosing personal identification information, whether it is possible to separate the personal identification information and the remaining information, and whether it is necessary to disclose personal identification information solely with the remaining information, or by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 7(1)6 and Article 12 of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)