[1] The meaning of Article 18 of the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions that "when a requester has suffered infringement of legal interests due to the disposition of public institutions in relation to the disclosure of information"

[2] Where a public institution raises an objection against a non-disclosure decision, whether the period for filing a lawsuit against a non-disclosure decision, which is the original disposition, is suspended until such objection is decided (affirmative)

[3] The standard for determining whether the information related to the so-called collegiate institution constitutes "information on the process of decision-making" under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

[4] Whether the minutes of disciplinary review by the Ministry of Education Disciplinary Review Committee fall under the information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act (affirmative)

[1] All citizens' right to request the disclosure of information is a legal interest protected legally, and furthermore, the claimant who received the request for the disclosure of information from a public institution but received the decision of non-disclosure has legal interest in dispute through administrative litigation, claiming that the right to request the disclosure of information under Articles 3 and 6 (1) of the Act on the Disclosure of Information by Public Institutions directly infringed on the right to request the disclosure of information. Thus, the "where the claimant has suffered legal interest due to the disposition of the public institution in relation to the disclosure of information" under Article 18 of the same Act refers to "where the claimant has received legal interest due to the disposition of the public institution in relation to the disclosure of information" means that the citizen requested the disclosure of information and received the decision of non-disclosure from the public institution,

[2] Under the provisions of Articles 16 through 18 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, an objection or administrative appeal is provided as a voluntary or selective procedure against the administrative litigation, and Article 20(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act stipulating the period for filing a lawsuit against the administrative appeal can be filed in the proviso thereof, the period for filing a lawsuit against the administrative appeal shall be counted from the date when the original copy of the written adjudication is served. In a case where an objection is filed against the information non-disclosure decision, it is reasonable to deem that the period for filing a lawsuit against the original decision is naturally suspended until the objection is filed, and that the period for filing a lawsuit against the original decision shall continue

[3] Whether the information related to the so-called collegiate institution is "information on the process of decision-making" and can be deemed as a reason for non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Act on the Disclosure of Information about Public Institutions should be determined specifically by weighing and balancing the benefits that may be infringed on by disclosure and the benefits that are derived from disclosure, in full view of various circumstances such as the legislative intent of each subparagraph of Article 7 (1) of the same Act, the nature of the relevant collegiate institution, the information prepared by the collegiate institution, the contents and nature of the minutes, and balance with other similar collegiate institutions or judicial

[4] The minutes of the Disciplinary Review Committee of the Ministry of Education ex post facto recording the procedure for review and decision of the already completed disciplinary review. Although it is not the "matters under the process of formation of an opinion" under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, they fall under the so-called decision-making process information equivalent thereto. The above minutes are documents stating the contents of the member's statement in the review and decision-making procedure of the disciplinary review case, and if disclosed, they constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 5 of the same Act.

[1] Article 18 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [2] Articles 16, 17, and 18 of the Official Information Disclosure Act, Article 20 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act / [4] Article 7 (1) 5 of the Official Information Disclosure Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm National Law Office, Attorneys Lee Il-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ministry of Education Disciplinary Review Committee (Attorney above-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 8, 1999

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 98Gu18731 delivered on January 20, 1999

1. The original judgment is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The judgment that the defendant's disposition of non-disclosure of the minutes of the disciplinary review case No. 97-112 against the plaintiffs on June 3, 1998 (the plaintiff corrected the date of non-disclosure disposition from July 11, 1998 to June 3, 1998)

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances, etc. of the instant disposition;

The following facts concerning the developments of the instant disposition may be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the perusal and examination of Gap's information on disclosure of this case (the minutes of this case) without dispute between the parties, or the records in Gap's 1 through 4, and the court's perusal and examination of Gap's information

(a) Summary of the case on review of disciplinary action;

(1) On June 197, when the prosecution conducted a provisional search and seizure for the employee of the Educational Broadcasting Board at the time, Nonparty 1 (public educational official) was found to have been aware of the (name omitted) elementary school teachers (public educational official) and Nonparty 1, who are the wife of the said employee, by indicating the money and valuables received from his parents and the student names and entering the amount and the trademark name on the name side, and reported this fact to the press, the superintendent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education referred Nonparty 1 to the Disciplinary Committee. However, Nonparty 1 stated that the above register was not recorded, and denied the fact that Nonparty 1 had received a regular degree of relationship. However, the superintendent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education rejected Nonparty 1’s dismissal on the ground that it constitutes a disciplinary cause, such as impairing the teacher’s dignity. Accordingly, Nonparty 1 requested the Defendant to review disciplinary action as the Defendant.

B. On October 20, 1997, the Defendant held a meeting of the Committee, followed the procedure of examining the opinions of Nonparty 1 on the grounds of disciplinary action, including confirmation of facts, and exchanged opinions among the members about the legitimacy of disciplinary action, and then it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant received money or valuables of KRW 10 to 2 million on a regular basis from the parents every month without any specific evidence solely on the basis of the existence of books on which money or valuables are recorded.

The defendant prepared the meeting minutes of the committee stating the process of review and decision of the above disciplinary review case (hereinafter referred to as "the meeting minutes of this case"). The case name, the name of the claimant and the respondent, the date and place of review of the committee, the attendance of the parties or their agents, the detailed questioning about the contents of the case against the claimant and the respondent, the contents of discussions among the members on the disciplinary decision and the conclusion of the decision of the committee, and all the matters concerning the review and decision procedure are signed by the chairperson, standing members, and participating employees at the end.

B. Details of the instant disposition

(1) On May 19, 198, the Plaintiffs, the executive officers of the Participatory Democratic and Social Citizen Association, who are citizen movement organizations that supervise and suggest alternative social issues, filed a claim with the Minister of Education for disclosure of various administrative information (including the contents and result of disciplinary action against other teachers, education informatization projects, information related to private teaching institutes violence, education reform direction, etc.) including the minutes of this case with the Minister of Education, in order to relieve the non-party 1 of so-called ‘the so-called ‘village school teacher' and to guarantee the right to know and to receive education, and to secure the right to know.

The defendant's chairperson, who was transferred the request for disclosure of information on the part of the minutes of this case, made a decision not to disclose the minutes of this case as of June 3, 1998 (hereinafter "the first decision" or "the disposition of this case"). The reasons for the non-disclosure decision are as follows: ① there is a possibility of undermining the personality of a specific individual or infringing on privacy; ② the disclosure of the minutes of the review process to the outside, thereby hindering the securing of fairness by impairing the free atmosphere of examination.

(1) On June 9, 1998, the plaintiffs received the first decision of June 1, 1998, and raised an objection against the defendant on July 7, 1998. However, as of July 11, 1998, the defendant again made an “non-disclosure decision” (hereinafter referred to as “the second decision”) on the ground that the minutes of this case were information about the defendant’s internal decision process and are likely to affect the defendant’s work or make it difficult for the defendant to fairly and efficiently perform his work.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the minutes of this case do not constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) of the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter "Information Disclosure Act") and that the disposition of this case is unlawful, and the defendant asserted that the disposition of this case is unlawful, as follows, as the main safety defense.

First, an appeal litigation against a non-disclosure decision under the Information Disclosure Act and the Administrative Litigation Act can be filed only when there is a direct and specific infringement of the applicant's interest. However, the plaintiffs are merely members of civic organizations and there is no legal interest in the appeal litigation against the disposition of this case.

Second, the plaintiffs filed an application for the correction of the purport of the claim with the application for the resumption of argument as of July 2, 1999 when they came to the trial. This is to seek the revocation of the second decision while seeking the revocation of the second decision, and it constitutes a modification of the claim, which constitutes a modification of the claim, or a substantial delay of litigation procedures, and thus, it is not permissible. Accordingly, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful against the principle of original disposition.

Third, the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit of this case on September 15, 1998 after receiving the first decision of June 9, 1998, which sought revocation in this case, and 90 days past the 90th day after which they filed the lawsuit of this case, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it exceeds the filing period.

(b) Markets:

(1) As to the assertion of defects

The right of citizens to know under the Constitution is interpreted to be included in the freedom of speech, that is, the freedom of expression under Article 21, and on the basis thereof, the Information Disclosure Act enacted to guarantee the people's right to know and secure citizens' participation in state affairs and transparency in state affairs by prescribing the necessary matters concerning the duty to disclose information held and managed by public institutions and the request for disclosure of information. Article 3 of the Information Disclosure Act declares the principle of disclosure of information by public institutions. Article 6 (1) of the same Act provides that all citizens shall have the right to request disclosure of information, and Article 7 of the same Act specifically lists information subject to non-disclosure. Article 7 of the same Act provides that all citizens are legally recognized to have the right to request disclosure of information by public institutions. On the other hand, the public institution requested for disclosure of information

In addition, Article 18 of the Act provides that an applicant for information disclosure may file an administrative suit, as provided by the Administrative Litigation Act, when the applicant for information disclosure infringes on legal interest due to disposition or omission by a public institution in relation to information disclosure. According to Articles 16 and 17 of the Information Disclosure Act, when the applicant for information disclosure infringes on legal interest due to disposition or omission by a public institution in relation to information disclosure, he/she may file an objection or file an administrative appeal voluntarily or selective.

In light of the above purpose, contents, purport, etc. of the Information Disclosure Act, all citizens' right to request information disclosure is a legal interest legally protected by law, and furthermore, the applicant who requested information disclosure to a public institution but received the decision of non-disclosure has legal interest to dispute the right to request information disclosure under Articles 3 and 6(1) of the Act by asserting that the public institution directly infringed on the right to request information disclosure under Article 7 of the Act. Thus, the "where the applicant is subject to legal interest due to the disposition of the public institution in relation to the information disclosure" under Article 18 of the Act refers to "where the applicant is subject to legal interest due to the disposition of the public institution in relation to the information disclosure," which means that the applicant requested information disclosure and received the decision of non-disclosure by the public institution is not a citizen,

Therefore, in an appeal suit seeking the cancellation of information non-disclosure decision, the first argument of the defendant, which is premised on the need of a separate legal interest in addition to the claim of infringement of the right of information disclosure due to the claimant's non-disclosure

See As to whether the correction of the plaintiffs' claim constitutes a modification of the lawsuit and its legality

㈎ 다음 사실은 이 법원에 현저하거나 위에서 본 증거들에 의하여 이를 인정할 수 있다.

① The Plaintiffs received the first notification of the first decision that issued two non-disclosure grounds (Article 7(1)5 and 6 of the Act), and thereafter filed an objection within a lawful period. The Plaintiffs received the second decision that issued one of the non-disclosure grounds (Article 7(1)5 of the Act) on July 14, 1998, and filed the instant lawsuit on September 15, 1998.

② The second notice of decision that the plaintiffs' objection should be dismissed, but the defendant used the second notice of decision that was used in the first notice of decision without preparing and notifying a separate written decision of dismissal, and the defendant used the second notice of non-disclosure in the same form as used in the first notice of decision. [The form of non-disclosure notice is set forth in Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Information Disclosure Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 21, Dec. 14, 1998) as the attached Form No. 6>

③ In the instant complaint, the Plaintiffs thought that the notice of the second decision was the notification of the non-disclosure decision, and stated the purport of the claim in the purport that the revocation thereof is sought, and the cause of the claim was not only the non-disclosure of the second decision, but also the two grounds for non-disclosure of the first decision were unlawful. The lower court also determined that the second decision was the subject of the instant lawsuit, but also the grounds for non-disclosure of the first decision were all determined in the judgment.

④ On July 28, 1999, the Plaintiffs filed an application for correction of the purport of the claim on July 2, 1999, which was stated on the date of pleading on July 28, 1999, and subsequently corrected the purport of the claim to seek revocation of the first decision in order to ensure that the cause of the claim is identical to the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim

㈏ 제1차 결정은 당초의 원처분인 비공개결정이고 제2차 결정은 제1차 결정에 대한 이의신청 기각결정으로서 양자는 서로 다른 처분임이 분명하고, 법 제16조 내지 제18조 의 규정 내용에 비추어 보면, 비공개결정에 대한 이의신청이나 행정심판은 임의적·선택적 절차에 불과하여 법 제18조 소정의 행정소송의 대상은 원칙적으로 원처분인 비공개결정처분이 되어야 함은 피고의 주장과 같다.

However, according to the above facts, the first decision is a non-disclosure decision on the claim for disclosure of the minutes of this case, and the plaintiffs raised an objection in accordance with Article 16 of the Act, but the defendant notified the plaintiffs to the effect that the second decision should again be made by using a non-disclosure notification form identical to the first decision because it misleads the plaintiffs to make a decision of rejection on the objection in accordance with Article 16 of the Act, and as a result, the plaintiffs notified the plaintiffs that the second decision should be made non-disclosure again by using the same non-disclosure notification form as the first decision, and that the combination of the first decision and the second decision should be seen as being a non-disclosure decision, and in full view of the complaint's purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, the plaintiff clearly stated the purport that all the two non-disclosure reasons stated in the first decision, the original decision, and the court below, as well as the first decision, and the second decision, the correction of the above purport of this case is merely a modification of the subject matter of the lawsuit, and it cannot be seen as a modification of the lawsuit.

㈐ 따라서 위 청구취지정정이 소의 변경에 해당함을 전제로 하는 피고의 둘째 주장도 더 나아가 살필 필요 없이 그 이유 없다.

ally, as to the Do and argument regarding the filing period

㈎ 법 제16조 내지 제18조 의 규정상 이의신청이나 행정심판이 행정소송에 대하여 임의적·선택적 절차로 마련되어 있는 점 및 제소기간을 규정한 행정소송법 제20조 제1항 은 그 단서에서 행정심판청구를 할 수 있는 경우에는 행정심판청구가 있은 때의 제소기간은 재결서의 정본을 송달받은 날부터 기산한다고 규정하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 정보 비공개결정에 대하여 이의신청을 한 경우 그 이의신청에 대한 결정을 받을 때까지는 원처분인 비공개결정에 대한 제소기간의 진행은 당연히 정지되고 이의신청에 대한 결정을 받은 날부터 제소기간이 진행한다고 봄이 상당하다.

㈏ 원고들이 1998. 6. 9.에 제1차 결정 통지서를 수령한 다음 1998. 7. 7. 피고에게 정보공개법 제16조 에 의한 이의신청을 하였고, 피고의 제2차 결정을 1998. 7. 14.에 수령하고 나서 90일 이내인 1998. 9. 15.에 이 사건 소를 제기한 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 이 사건 소가 제1차 결정에 대한 취소소송이며 위 청구취지정정이 소의 변경에 해당하지 않는다는 점도 위에서 본 바와 같으므로, 이 사건 소는 제소기간 내에 제기된 적법한 소라 할 것이다.

Therefore, the defendant's third assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant disposition

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the minutes of this case are legitimate dispositions based on Article 7 (1) 5 or 6 of the Act, since they fall under "information which has a reasonable ground to believe that the fair performance of duties may be significantly impeded if disclosed, such as matters in the process of decision-making or internal review, or "information on individuals by name, resident registration number, etc. included in the pertinent information" under Article 7 (1) 6 of the Act and thus the disposition of this case refusing to request disclosure of the minutes of this case is based on the name, resident registration number, etc. included in the pertinent information.

(b) Related statutes;

【Principle of Disclosure of Information】

Information held and managed by public institutions shall be disclosed as prescribed by this Act.

【Information Subject to Non-Disclosure】

(1) A public institution may choose not to disclose information falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. to 4. Deficiened>

5. Information in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contract, technology development, personnel management, decision-making process, or internal review, etc., which, if disclosed, has reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure may significantly interfere with fair performance of duties or research and development;

6. Personal information that may identify a specific person by the name, resident registration number, etc. included in the relevant information: Provided, That the following personal information shall be excluded:

(a) Information that is accessible to the public under statutes;

(b) Information prepared or acquired by public institutions, the purpose of which is to announce;

(c) Information prepared or acquired by a public institution, which is deemed necessary to protect the public interest or individual rights;

(c) Markets:

We examine whether the minutes of this case constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Act.

(i)The contents and legislative intent of Article 7(1) of the Information Disclosure Act

Article 7(1) of the Act explicitly provides for the matters prescribed by other Acts and subordinate statutes as confidential and non-disclosure (subparagraph 1), national interest-related information (Paragraph 2), protection of life, body, and property, and public interest-related information (Paragraph 3), judgment, crime, and investigation-related information (Paragraph 4), general administrative management information (Paragraph 5), individual information (subparagraph 6), corporation-related information (subparagraph 7), and information related to a specific person's interest and disadvantage (Paragraph 8). Subparagraph 5 provides for information related to audit, supervision and inspection, testing-related information, regulation-related information, tendering-related information, technology development-related information, personnel decision-making process, and internal review process, which, if disclosed, has considerable grounds to believe that fair performance of duties or substantial impediment to research and development. The purpose of subparagraph 5 above is to provide for information subject to non-disclosure, such as information that, if disclosed, is considerably difficult to fairly and efficiently perform the relevant duties if it is prepared or acquired by a public institution in the course of performing its duties.

However, in light of the fact that Article 7 (1) 5(a) of the Act provides ".....", not only the matters in the process of audit, supervision, inspection, test, regulation, tendering contracts, technology development, personnel management, or decision-making processes or internal review processes, but also general administrative operational information equivalent thereto, which, if disclosed, has considerable reasons to be recognized as significantly impeding the fair performance of the relevant duties, shall be deemed to constitute information subject to non-disclosure under Article 7 (1) 5(a) of the Act.

See legal principles on whether to disclose information pertaining to the collegiate institution

In light of the principle of disclosure of information under Article 3 of the Act, information related to a collegiate institution may not be always disclosed, as well as the logic that it should not be established. If there is no express provision that the so-called collegiate institution’s information related to the collegiate institution is closed to the public, such as the minutes of this case, the provision on general administrative operational information (Article 7(1)5 of the Act) shall not be applied by analogical interpretation. Here, whether the information related to the collegiate institution can be viewed as “non-disclosure reasons under Article 7(1)5 of the Act” as “the process of decision-making” should be determined by weighing and balancing the benefits that may be infringed by disclosure, for example, the legislative purport of each subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the Act, the nature of the collegiate institution, the content and nature of the minutes of the information prepared by the collegiate institution, and the balance with other similar collegiate institution or judicial procedures.

•Procedure of the Defendant’s review and decision and the nature of the minutes of this case

The defendant is a collegiate administrative agency established under the Ministry of Education in order to conduct a review on a disciplinary action against a teacher or any other unfavorable measure against his/her will under Article 7 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers' Status. According to Article 53(1) of the Public Educational Officials Act, in order to institute an administrative litigation against a disciplinary action against a teacher who is a public educational official, it must undergo a disciplinary review by the defendant. Ultimately, the procedure for the deliberation and decision of a disciplinary action against the defendant is a kind of administrative appeals procedure that falls under the appeals review committee of the general public. According to Article 15 of the Regulations on the Review of Disciplinary Action against Teachers (Presidential Decree No. 13389, Jun. 191) of the Regulations on the Review of Teachers' Disciplinary Action, etc., the Review Committee provides that the Review Committee shall prepare a protocol on the review procedure of the case. The decision (agreement)

In addition, the minutes of this case include not only the formal descriptions (the name of the case, the name of the claimant and the respondent, the date and place in which the examination of the commission is open, the situation in which the parties or their representatives are present), but also the substantive contents of the examination procedure (the specific questions and answers to the contents of each case against the claimant and the respondent) and the substantive contents of the decision procedure (the contents of discussions and the conclusion of the decision of the commission among the members on the disciplinary determination

Therefore, the minutes of this case are recorded ex post facto in the review and decision-making procedure of the already completed disciplinary action, and it is not itself a "in the process of formation of an intention under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Act, but it is a so-called information on the decision-making process corresponding thereto (at the end, it falls under the " etc." under Article 7 (1) 5 of the Act).

Applicant Whether the minutes of this case were disclosed

㈎ 위에서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 회의록은 소외 1 교사의 비위사실에 대한 징계처분의 당부를 심판하기 위하여 피고가 행한 징계재심사건 심사·결정절차에서의 관련자의 진술 등 문답 내용이 상세히 기록되어 있는바, 원고들 주장과 같이 헌법상의 알 권리를 보장하고 공익에 반하는 교육 관행 및 교사의 비위사실에 대한 은폐·축소 의혹을 해소하며 징계절차의 투명성을 확보한다는 측면에서 그 공개가 공익에 봉사한다고 볼 수도 있는 반면에, 이를 공개하는 경우에는 그와 같은 공익에 못지 않게 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 피고의 심사업무의 공정한 수행에 현저한 지장을 초래하여 또다른 공익이 침해되는 문제가 발생하고, 양자를 비교형량하면 이 사건 회의록은 법 제7조 제1항 제5호 소정의 비공개대상정보에 해당한다고 인정된다.

① Article 107(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that the procedure of administrative appeals conducted by the administration, as the procedure of the entire trial of a trial, shall be determined by Act and shall be applied mutatis mutandis to the judicial procedure. Even in the case of the judicial procedure, deliberation and judgment shall be made open to the public in principle, but the agreement of the trial shall not be made open to the public (Article 65 of the Court Organization Act). In the same purport, the part concerning the minutes of the committee in which the committee’s agreement is made by the members shall not be open to the public. If the resolution process of the committee is open to the public, it does not conform to the purport of the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status, which

② In the Defendant’s meeting (review and decision-making procedure), questions, questions, newspapers, and unexpected discussions regarding the formation of the final will of the commission are achieved, and thus, in order to guarantee free and active review and decision-making, the contents of each member’s remarks made during the review and decision-making procedure should be thoroughly guaranteed even after the completion of the commission. If the minutes of the instant meeting are disclosed, the members or the participants (applicant or respondent) may have a considerable burden on disclosure of the minutes, and may not freely exchange the minutes in the review and decision-making procedure of the commission under psychological pressure, and even may have concerns that the parties or the external members may make a speech in harmony with the intention of the commission, or have an implicit and consistent contents. In order to avoid such situation and promote the loyalty and realization of the review and decision-making process, the minutes of the instant meeting shall not be disclosed to the outside, other than the contents of the decision-making procedure written in the reasons. If the entire minutes of the instant case are disclosed, it is likely to seriously undermine the fair and smooth operation of the commission.

③ Disciplinary proceedings on public educational officials and appeals procedures are conducted three stages of disciplinary proceedings by the Disciplinary Committee, the Ministry of Education Teachers’ Disciplinary Review Procedures, and the administrative court’s trial procedures. In light of the fact that Article 18 of the Decree on Disciplinary Measures on Public Educational Officials provides that a person who attends a meeting of the Disciplinary Committee shall not disclose any confidential information he/she has learned in the course of performing his/her duties, and Article 19 of the Decree on Disciplinary Measures on Public Educational Officials provides that a person who attends a meeting of the Disciplinary Committee shall not disclose any confidential information that he/she has learned in the course of performing his/her duties, and therefore, the minutes of the Committee shall be deemed non-disclosure information. Meanwhile, in administrative litigation proceedings, only a party or a third party who clearly expresses interest may request perusal and copy of court records (Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 151(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). However, the fact that the minutes of the instant case falling under the records on the defendant’s review and decision procedures prior to the administrative litigation should be disclosed to any party or interested third party is inconsistent with the prior stage or administrative litigation proceedings.

(4) In addition, Article 26-2 of the Administrative Appeals Act (amended by Act No. 5600 of Dec. 28, 1998 and enforced March 29, 199) provides that the contents of a statement made by a member of the administrative appeals commission and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree as likely to impair the fairness of deliberation and resolution of the commission shall not be disclosed. Article 23-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Appeals Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16326 of May 24, 1999) delegated by the committee (including subcommittees) provides that the document stating the contents of a statement made by the member of the committee at the meeting of the committee (including subcommittees) and other matters deemed likely to undermine the fairness of deliberation and resolution of the committee, and Article 43(2) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that the minutes of the case subject to non-disclosure are not subject to non-disclosure under other Acts, but under other Acts.

㈏ 위에서 본 바에 의하면, 이 사건 회의록은 피고의 징계재심사건 심사·결정절차에서 위원이 발언한 내용이 기재된 문서로서 그것이 공개될 경우 징계재심사건 처리 업무의 공정한 수행에 현저한 지장을 초래한다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있다고 인정되므로 정보공개법 제7조 제1항 제5호 소정의 비공개대상정보에 해당한다고 보아야 할 것이고, 따라서 나머지 비공개사유에 대하여 더 나아가 살필 필요 없이 이 사건 처분은 적법하다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is unfair with different conclusions. Thus, the judgment below is revoked by accepting the defendant's appeal, and the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)