(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.9.12.선고 2018누40951 판결

The disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on May 10, 2017 for non-disclosure of the information listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant's non-disclosure disposition regarding the risk assessment in the attached list that the defendant attached to the plaintiff on May 10, 2017 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation as to the instant case are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment (excluding the list and “3. conclusion” part of the judgment of the first instance, as well as the modification of the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance as the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be corrected;

○ 8th 4 to 5 pages "fact-finding and fact-finding" are "the first instance court and the second instance court and the second instance court in relation to the fact-finding. 8th 8th 8th 2009. (1) The plaintiff "if any, 9th 9th 9th 9th 2009. (1) The plaintiff was introduced to reinforce scientific and technical grounds to determine whether the plaintiff falls under the KIE (Know, Imminent, Subantant Eth 1st 2061), which is the healing standard for treating environmental pollution in the process of returning the site of the US military base, and the degree of risk assessment can vary by comprehensively establishing a plan to use the site within the scope of the site of the subject matter, the degree of risk assessment can vary depending on the degree of risk assessment by comprehensively considering the characteristics of the site of the site, the degree of risk assessment by step 2018 to 4, and the degree of risk assessment by step 2018-61.

The 8th 10-11th "Guidelines for Risk Assessment of Soil Contamination (Public Notice of Ministry of Environment)" is the "Guidelines for Risk Assessment".

○ 9 1.0 9 10 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ..0 .. 10 .... .... are added to the right side.

○ 4 below the 9th page “this information will be seen from the same side to the following:

【The extent of guidelines for risk assessment is not merely an extent to which the value can be partially changed as a result of the establishment by the evaluation phase based on objective data, but also a number of possibilities for the negotiating parties to reasonably choose the scope of purification and the level of purification based on the information derived from analyzing the value of the result and its analysis based on their interests.

0 The 10th 10th 1st am "from 10 to 1......." are as follows:

【Co-ownership with the U.S. military, resulting in negotiations on the recovery of environmental pollution that occurred in the U.S. military base site by using various strategies and methods. However, the disclosure of the risk assessment part of the instant information falls under the scope generally acceptable, but there is a risk of unnecessary misunderstanding by the public. Accordingly, the Republic of Korea government may substantially block the source of choice prior to the healing negotiation. As such, it may have a serious adverse effect on the process of the negotiations on the return of the U.S. military base in progress.)

○ 10 10 2 to 6 Happed as follows.

(5) In addition, according to the procedures for joint environmental assessment (JEP), the Government of the Republic of Korea will undertake negotiations for return with the United States Armed Forces in addition to the Bupyeong Military Base in the future. However, even if the two countries of the Republic of Korea and the United States have decided to disclose the relevant information under their agreement, the disclosure of the objective values without any possibility of dispute in interpretation, which could be utilized as a variety of strategies and methods during the negotiation process, would be likely to lose trust between the Korea and the United States union. Accordingly, it is reasonable that the result is close to the conclusion of the agreement for return of the Bupyeong Military Base, the long-term possibility of adversely affecting the Republic of Korea in the negotiation for return of the U.S. Military Base, and the long-term possibility of adversely affecting the Republic of Korea).

The following shall be added to the right side of 10 10 pages "........":

In addition, as long as all of the information of this case disclosed the part, excluding the risk assessment, and provides the people with objectively accurate and comprehensive information about the degree of contamination in the vicinity of the Bupyeong-gun Base, it seems that the people's right to know about "the discovery of contamination in the Bupyeong-gun Base" can be sufficiently guaranteed even if the risk assessment part is not disclosed to the public."

In addition, the Supreme Court Decision 2011Du19659 Decided November 24, 201, 201 201 and 201Du19659 Decided November 24, 200, which the plaintiff scam, requested the disclosure of information after the site has already been returned. In the case of Supreme Court Decision 2007Du14596 Decided February 26, 2009 (camba), prior to the introduction of a risk assessment method as to whether it falls under the criteria for recovery of environmental pollution in the military base, the risk assessment method was introduced to introduce a risk assessment method and the case in which negotiations on the return of land are underway is different from this case, so it is inappropriate to invoke the above Supreme Court precedents as it is in this case).

○ 10 by inserting the following information under 9:

(8) As to this, the Plaintiff: (a) by stipulating that Chapter IV of the Guidelines for Risk Assessment provides for the methods of public announcement and public inspection of the risk assessment report and the submission of residents’ opinions, the Plaintiff shall verify the compliance with the evaluation procedures by disclosing and verifying what formula and the identity, coefficient, etc. in the process of preparing and drawing the results of the assessment; and (b) in applying some formula and figures and coefficients, the Defendant borrowed the U.S. Exchange Racing (USEPA) provisions, which are not the Guidelines for Risk Assessment; and (c) if the Defendant alleged that the subjective interpretation of the assessment person acts as the Defendant’s assertion, it would be reasonable to reveal the reasons for disclosure of the report. However, the gender assessment used in the process of negotiations for the return of the U.S. base is only introduced to ensure objectivity of the determination on whether it falls under the standards for recovery of contamination under the SOFA regulations, and it is only introduced to ensure objectivity of the determination on whether it falls under the criteria for recovery of contamination

It is difficult to readily conclude that the content of the above “Guideline”, which provides for the contents to be stated, is intended to be followed. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the part of gender assessment among the instant information ought to be disclosed solely on the sole basis of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

○ 10th day below up to 11th day shall be as follows:

D. Sub-committee

As seen earlier, the instant information is subject to the Information Disclosure Act. Of the instant information, the risk assessment part falls under the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)2 of the Information Disclosure Act, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of non-disclosure on this part is lawful. The remainder of the information does not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 9(1)2 of the Information Disclosure Act, and is unlawful. Meanwhile, according to the court’s result of non-disclosure inspection and examination, the instant information is mixed with the information of this case. However, the risk assessment part is specified as a separate title (the part pertaining to the risk assessment in the summary, the part pertaining to the non-disclosure assessment of March 2, 3 (2015) among Chapter III (the first investigation) and the other information (the fourth risk assessment part) are classified into “non-disclosure information” (the fourth risk assessment part), and thus, it is reasonable to revoke only the remainder of the information that can be excluded or deleted from the information of this case, and it is worth disclosure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du109).

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.