2016Guhap889 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Information Disclosure

A

Seoul Central District Court chief

October 7, 2016

October 28, 2016

1. On January 20, 2016, the Defendant’s decision not to disclose the information on the claim stated in the separate sheet issued to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

On January 11, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to disclose the requested information in the attached Form (hereinafter referred to as “instant information”). However, on October 20, 2016, the Defendant rendered a non-disclosure decision (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that disclosure of the case number of the parties is likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals due to easily combining the information with other information.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

The main text of Article 9(1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Information Disclosure Act") provides that "information held and managed by a public institution shall be disclosed to the public," and the proviso of Article 9(1) provides that "personal information, such as name, resident registration number, etc., which is deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or the freedom of privacy, if disclosed to the public, may not be disclosed."

However, in light of the following circumstances and facts, each statement of evidence Nos. 3 through 8, which can be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings, the instant disposition made by the Defendant on the ground of Article 9(1)6 of the Information Disclosure Act is unlawful.

① The instant information that the Plaintiff sought to disclose is merely a case number and does not themselves constitute information that is deemed likely to infringe on the privacy or freedom of individuals if disclosed.

② The Plaintiff filed a request for disclosure of the instant information to file a copy of the judgment (a request for a copy of the judgment shall be filed by specifying the case number), and may prevent infringement of privacy or freedom through the process of anonymous processing when disclosing the judgment.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that if the Plaintiff used the instant information to conduct a case search, etc., the same result as providing the names of the parties, legal representatives, witnesses, etc. of each of the instant cases may result in infringement of the right to privacy or self-information control of the parties to the instant case. However, the parties to the instant case had been known to the public through press reports, etc., and the risk of notifying the names of the attorneys, witnesses, etc. may arise from the failure to conduct anonymous processing, etc. of the disclosure of the instant information based on the instant search, etc., and it is difficult to view that the disclosure of the instant information

③ On October 14, 2015, the Seoul High Court: (a) on January 8, 2016, the head of the Seoul High Court; (b) on January 26, 2016, the head of the Busan High Court rendered a decision to disclose the Plaintiff’s case number request; (c) on January 26, 2016, the head of the Busan High Court decided to disclose the information (the Plaintiff’s claim to disclose the information to the head of the Seoul Administrative Court and the Seoul High Court, as in the instant case of the instant information disclosure). In particular, the Defendant also made a decision to disclose the information on the instant case number request related to the Plaintiff’s judgment related to “C” of the case where the information disclosure was made. It is difficult to find a reasonable ground to distinguish the case where the information disclosure was made from the instant case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-tae

Judges Kim Young-young

Judges Maap-man

A person shall be appointed.