2014Nu58091 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Information Disclosure

A

The Head of Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap60781 Decided June 13, 2014

March 24, 2015

April 7, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

On July 19, 2013, the Defendant revoked a disposition rejecting the disclosure of information as to the information listed in attached Tables 1, 2, and 3, against the Plaintiff, and disclosed the information rejected.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiff ordering the revocation below shall be revoked. The Defendant revoked the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information as to the information listed in the attached Tables 2 and 3 against the Plaintiff on July 19, 2013, and disclosed the information rejected to the public.1)

1. Scope of adjudication;

The Plaintiff sought a judgment identical with the purport of the claim, but the court of first instance rejected the part of the disposition rejecting the disclosure of information on the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (integrated with images, including all CCTV images, corridors, entrances, work improvement1, etc., from May 15, 2013 to May 16, 2013) and the decision rejecting the disclosure of information was rendered with respect to the part rejecting the disclosure of information as to the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (with respect to the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2013 to 18:5, May 16, 2013) and the part rejecting the disclosure of information as to the part rejecting the disclosure of information as to the information recorded in the separate sheet No. 3 (with respect to all CCTV images, such as all CCTV images, corridors, entrances, work improvement 1, etc., of officers of the Seoul Regional Labor Agency).

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed, the part concerning the non-disposition of the information disclosure statement on the information listed in the attached list No. 1 is separately determined, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and the reasoning for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the following (3) and part of the first instance judgment as stated below. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Parts to be dried;

0 The second 15th "paragraph (d)" of the 2nd 15th shall be applied as follows:

“The Plaintiff was prosecuted for the following facts. The Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million at the Seoul Central District Court on November 28, 2014, and was pending in the appellate trial as Seoul Central District Court 20145196 at the time of filing an appeal.” Article 3(f) of the 3rd part of the 19th part of the 20th part of the 20th part of the 2013th part of the 2013th part of the 3th part of the 2014.

“The Plaintiff appealed and submitted an application for non-disclosure decision to the Defendant on July 5, 2013, and the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection on July 19, 2013 pursuant to Article 18(2) and (3) of the Official Information Disclosure Act after deliberation by the Information Disclosure Council.”

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Hatho

Judges Park Chang-chul

1) Since the Plaintiff appealed to the entire part of the judgment of the first instance against the Plaintiff, the purport of the appeal is determined as above.

A person shall be appointed.