(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.4.15. 선고 2015구합82631 판결

The information disclosure system maintained and managed by the defendant (www.open.go.kr) confirms that omission, which is not corrected to enable the defendant to file an objection against the information disclosure decision, is illegal.

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Article 18(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) provides that a claimant may file an objection against a decision of non-disclosure or partial disclosure made by a public institution related to the disclosure of information if the claimant is dissatisfied with the decision of non-disclosure or partial disclosure of information. However, if a public institution notifies the public institution of its decision of non-disclosure or partial disclosure of information formally, a claimant cannot file an objection against the decision of full disclosure under the Information Disclosure System (www.open.go.K.) operated by the Defendant. On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for improvement of the Information Disclosure System to allow the Defendant to file an objection against the decision of full disclosure of information made by the public institution on July 29, 2015, without responding to the Defendant. Such omission is unlawful as it unfairly infringes the Plaintiff’s right to file an objection.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful due to the lack of standing to sue or standing to sue.

In light of this, an administrative agency's omission, which is the object of a lawsuit seeking confirmation of illegality of an omission, refers to an administrative agency's failure to take a certain disposition within a reasonable period of time, notwithstanding the existence of a legal obligation to make a certain disposition against a party's request, and this lawsuit is brought by a person who filed a request for a disposition. Accordingly, an administrative agency's response to the plaintiff's response by the administrative agency, which is sought by the plaintiff, must be related to a disposition under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90-9391, Nov. 8, 1991). On the other hand, an administrative disposition is an act of an administrative agency under public law, which directly changes citizens' specific rights and obligations, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations under laws and regulations, or giving other legal effects, and an act that does not directly change the legal status of the other party or other related persons cannot be subject to an appeal litigation (see, e.g

In the instant case, although the Plaintiff demanded the improvement of the information disclosure system website (www.open.go.go.kr) website to the Defendant, the fact that the above information disclosure system is operated so that it cannot file an objection against the decision of disclosure in whole differently from the decision of non-disclosure or partial disclosure of information is only in accordance with Article 18(1) of the Information Disclosure Act. In other words, the improvement of the information disclosure system sought by the Plaintiff itself is essentially an act of non-powerd facts by an administrative agency, and it is difficult to view that it directly changes in the specific rights and obligations of the general public, including the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s response to the instant case by the Plaintiff as a matter of disposition under Article 2(1)1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, and therefore, the existence of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.