(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.4.30.선고 2012구합3420 판결

1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting the disclosure of information against the Plaintiff on May 2012 is revoked. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order of hearing.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, in civil litigation with Nonparty D’s class D, most E was the perjury, and filed a complaint for perjury with the Jinju District Prosecutors’ Office (No. 13925) at the Jinju District Prosecutor’s Office. However, in the above case, on the ground that the crime of perjury, which became final and conclusive after having been sentenced to the lowest conviction, was finalized.

B. In around 2012, the Plaintiff filed a motion with the Defendant for a copying of the remaining information (hereinafter “instant information”) excluding the personal information recorded in the interrogation protocol prepared by a judicial police officer of the highest E in the investigation record of the indictment case against the Defendant in order to submit the above clan representative as evidence when filing a fraud.

C. On May 2012, the Defendant made a disposition denying the disclosure of information on the grounds that the disclosure of the records pursuant to Article 22 of the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors’ Offices may seriously harm the honor, privacy, safety of life and body, or peace of life of the persons involved in the case (hereinafter “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute a matter of absence, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant information is not subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)3 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”), and thus, it is unlawful for the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s information disclosure, even though it is not subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)3 and 6 of the Official Information Disclosure Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The Defendant cited Article 22 of the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors' Office based on the instant disposition. However, although the Rules on the Affairs for the Preservation of Prosecutors' Offices were enacted by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Justice pursuant to Article 11 of the Prosecutor's Office Act, the fact alone does not have any legal effect, and Article 22 of the same Rules, which limits the reading and copying of records, merely provides administrative rules within the administrative period as administrative rules for the reason that there are no legal grounds for delegation, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the restriction on reading and copying of records under the above Rules constitutes "information provided for as confidential or confidential matters by any other Act or any order delegated by any other Act" (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du3049, May 25, 2006, etc.).

Therefore, the defendant cannot refuse the plaintiff's request for disclosure of information under the provisions of Article 22 of the Prosecution Preservation Work Rules.

2) Article 9(1)3 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that information deemed likely to seriously undermine the protection of people’s lives, bodies, and property, if disclosed, shall be one of the information subject to non-disclosure. Of the instant information, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is no information that may seriously undermine the protection of people’s lives, bodies, and property if disclosed. Rather, according to the court’s result of a non-disclosure review on the instant information, the instant information cannot be deemed as information that is likely to seriously undermine the protection of people’s lives, bodies, and property by disclosing the information as the most E-E’s statement, etc. related to the suspicion of perjury and Plaintiff Company F’s statement, etc., by disclosing the information. Thus, the instant information cannot be deemed as non-disclosure under Article 9(1)3 of the Information Disclosure Act.

3) Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act provides that one of the information subject to non-disclosure, such as name, resident registration number, etc., included in the relevant information, which, if disclosed, could infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals.

The instant information that the Plaintiff seeks to disclose is the remaining information except for personal personal information (the maximum resident registration number, occupation, domicile, reference domicile, workplace address, contact information, family relation, academic background, military service, religion, property, and living level) among each protocol of interrogation of the highest party to the E. According to the result of the court’s non-disclosure review on the instant information, it is determined that such information does not constitute personal identification information as provided by Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act, and as a result, it does not constitute information that is likely to interfere with personal and mental internal life or to interfere with free private life. Thus, it does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure as provided by the above provision.

4) Therefore, the instant disposition, which rejected copying of the instant information, which did not constitute information subject to non-disclosure, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.