logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.07.28 2015누33457
정보공개거부처분취소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of information with the Defendant regarding “a notice of decision on the application for disclosure and partial disclosure (attached Form 7, excluding personal information) among all applications for disclosure of information received from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012.”

B. On September 30, 2013, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision on the ground that “personal information (name, address, telephone number, etc.) recorded automatically on a system-based notice of decision to disclose information is not arbitrarily deleted.”

[Ground of recognition Gap] evidence 1

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

A. As to the plaintiff's assertion that the non-disclosure decision of the defendant is illegal, the defendant's claim for information disclosure for the purpose of obtaining litigation costs and attorney's fees or avoiding labor and inducing administrative agencies, which constitutes abuse of right of action.

B. A citizen’s claim for information disclosure should be widely permitted in principle unless it falls under information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9 of the Information Disclosure Act. However, in reality, where it is evident that a person’s claim for information disclosure constitutes abuse of right, such as where the person intends to obtain unjust benefits which cannot be accepted by social norms by using the information disclosure system without any intent to acquire or utilize the pertinent information, or where it is evident that the person’s claim for information disclosure solely falls under abuse of right, such as where the public institution’s public official is made for the purpose of inducing public officials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du9349, Dec. 24, 2014). In this case, in full view of each of the statements stated in subparagraphs A, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 through 24, 26, 29, 29, 32, and 2 (including a serial number) of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff may request information disclosure to an administrative agency across the nation.

arrow